Is the Bill of Rights either negotiable OR ammendable???

[tRidiot]

Some are saying this Bill before the Senate is a de facto amendment to the 2nd. And that if we wish (as a nation) to change or nullify in any way the 2nd Amendment, we must have another constitutional amendment push to do it.

But - here's my stance.

In my opinion, the First Ten (the Bill of Rights) CANNOT be amended. I would think this would be obvious. I'm not sure it is actually impossible in procedural terms, but from a historical and legal precedent standpoint, I would not think it possible.

Remember your history, folks. The original Constitution was NOT ratified by all 13 states. It was sent back for "amendment" to add the Bill of Rights (aka the First Ten). Thus... WITHOUT the Bill of Rights as written, the Constitution of the United States would not have passed, therefore - changing any of the First Ten would invalidate the entire document!

It is my opinion (remember IANAL), therefore, that ANY change or nullification to ANY portion of the First Ten in essence constitutes the dissolution of our current Constitution and entire governmental system.

Any thoughts? I am open for debate... and as I said, in practice this may not actually be the case, but I believe it SHOULD be. The First Ten are as inviolable as Article VII, Article III, or any of the others.

Just my $0.02.

 

[Hobbes]

I'm pretty sure there is a great deal of debate and law passing related to the 4th amendment.
Lots of court cases around it.

It's open to interpretation that the 2nd amendment is not.

 

[mons meg]

Well, they also ratified the section of the Constitution that allowed for Amendments, but I would say it wasn't until the 20th Century that the process was abused. Changing to direct election of Senators amended the main body of the document, and thy passed that.

 

[Gideon]

I think we would've been better off without the Bill of Rights in the first place, I would have supported the anti-Federalists on this matter for fear of the negative pregnant that is now tearing our rights apart.

 

[Dave70968]

Of course it's amendable. Article V tells us exactly how it's done.

Why would those amendments be any different than, say, the Eighteenth, which was repealed outright by subsequent amendment (the Twenty-First)?

Ratification means that the states agreed to the amendment process as well.

 

[caojyn]

Of course it's amendable. Article V tells us exactly how it's done.

Why would those amendments be any different than, say, the Eighteenth, which was repealed outright by subsequent amendment (the Twenty-First)?

Ratification means that the states agreed to the amendment process as well.

agreed, just like any other part of Constitution it's supposed to be a huge PITA to amend, unfortunately politicians are always working to circumvent that process

 

[rsc]

I feel the Bill of Rights is sacred to our Constitution and national identity. When someone talks of abridging our rights under the Bill of Rights I ask them to apply it to the 1st Amendment and see if it still sounds like a good idea.

"Free speech does not mean that everyone should be allowed to ....... Free speech only is meant to discuss hunting and in the privacy of your own home." Um, yeah. Okay.

 

[mugsy]

I feel the Bill of Rights is sacred to our Constitution and national identity. When someone talks of abridging our rights under the Bill of Rights I ask them to apply it to the 1st Amendment and see if it still sounds like a good idea.

I agree with you but speaking of the propriety or wisdom of amending the Constitution is different than speaking of the legality of doing so. There is no exception to the amendment process. The Founders did make amending the Constitution difficult but also basically accepted that if there was enough support to get through the amending process then the change would happen de-facto anyway.