[political_chick]

Hello:

I don't mean to offend you, but your post makes no sense. The first amendment is the first amendment and it concerns free speech among other freedoms. The fact that the initial draft had 2 amendments that were NOT ratified proves the author's point and dismisses yours.

While that particular history is interesting to know, it is also irrelevant to the article. Perhaps you need to do a little more studying and try to understand that many, many more items were left out of the Bill of Rights, which you correctly note is part of the Constitution.(they are called amendments for a reason, Bob).

The final draft, our Constitution and Bill of Rights is what we base our freedoms on, not on the papers and ideas that hit the floor and were never passed, Bob.

[Congressman Billybob]

No, I did not miss the point, the writer of the article did.

The ORIGINAL First Amendment as written by James Madison, failed of ratification. The ORIGINAL Second Amendment seemed to have been defeated at the time (when there were only 14 states). However, after 200 years as states continued to ratify it, it became part of the Constitution as the 27th Amendment. (That is called "The Madison Amendment" because it came from his pen.)

So, I AM dealing with the Constitution as written and ratified. And the author of the article IS wrong to refer to the First Amendment as the first right laid down by the Framers. The author was speaking ignorantly, and I'm just helping Freepers know more than members of the press -- which is often a fairly easy task.

Congressman Billybob