#1
Would the Bill of Rights be more or less powerful if it was included in the original Constitution?

I don't see how it would be more powerful, nor how it would be less powerful.
LARGE TEXT
#2
I don't see how it would exist.
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#3
e). All of the above.


Sorry I know nothing about US politics. Or about Aus politics either... >_>
. . ▄████▄ . ▄███▄
. █████████▀ . . . . . . . . . . . . ▄▄
.███▌█|█|█|█|█|█|█|█|█|█▐███▄▄
. ████████▄ . . . . . . . . . . . . . º º º º º º º
. . ▀████▀. ▀██▀
#4
Quote by VVolverin3
e). All of the above.


Sorry I know nothing about US politics. Or about Aus politics either... >_>

Neither do I, and I am a U.S. freaking citizen.
LARGE TEXT
#5
no, because there are no politicians that care about the constitution
This is not a signature
#6
The Bill of Rights was part of the original Constitution. The Anti-Federalists wouldn't allow it to pass without it. If you mean the Articles of Confederation, then it would be less powerful because the federal government had virtually no powers under the Articles. Ask me if you need any other help man, I got a 5 on my ap gov test.
Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
#7
Well to me the constitution seems to be worded in a way that is open to interpretation, which is done by the Supreme Court. But the Bill of Rights is more of a straight forward deceleration with little room for different interpretations so I would say less powerful.

Since you are in AP Government you are probably more enlightened on the subject than I so I apologize if everything I said is horribly wrong.
Because deep down, I know you want to:

My Youtube Channel

Constructive criticism is always welcomed.
#8
The Bill of Rights can be interpreted by the Court too as it is by those who follow a loose constructionist philosophy. The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution which is why the original question doesn't make much sense.
Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
#10
Quote by Page/Rhoads
The Bill of Rights was part of the original Constitution. The Anti-Federalists wouldn't allow it to pass without it. If you mean the Articles of Confederation, then it would be less powerful because the federal government had virtually no powers under the Articles. Ask me if you need any other help man, I got a 5 on my ap gov test.
Not that I know much, but didn't they release the Constitution THEN the Anti-Federalists got all hot and bothered, so they ratified it and added the first ten amendments of the Bill of Rights?
LARGE TEXT
#11
US Constitution consists of a preamble and 7 articles
The first 10 amendments and the 17 subsequent ones are intended to clarify or amend the original 7 articles.
That is all. It's not rocket science.
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#12
Right, but virtually nothing happened in between that time. It was proposed at the original writing of the Constitution but it took about 2 years for 3/4th's of the states to ratify them. So really there wouldn't be a difference in the power that I can think of right now.
Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
#13
Well, it might not have been emphasized as much if it was a part of the original Constitution.
He's a freak of nature, but we love him so.

Quote by John Frusciante
Music isn't the Olympics. It's not about showing other people what you can do with a piece of wood in your hands that has strings on, it's about making sounds that are good.
#14
I want to say less powerful because people would be more likely to change them around, but then again amendments have been repealed before, so their inclusion in the original constitution would have no significant difference on their power.
Quote by SleightOfHand
****in right budday! grunge is the shiite!

didnt read ur post tho so dont know what im agreeing to.

Quote by horloko
Good. More centaur pussy for me.

Quote by myearshurt


God bless you GrungeBeatle


#15
The difference in power comes from the fact they are Amendments, not part of the original Constitution. And as Amendments they can be repealed, such as the 18th Amendment which banned all alcohol sales in the US, which was later repealed by the 21st Amendment. Had the sale of alcohol been banned in the original Constitution an entirely new Constitution would have to be drafted and ratified in order to change that.

So being included in the original Constitution would have made the Bill of Rights more powerful.
Quote by Wondergaurd
The Strat/Tele debate is alot like picking a starter in Pokemon, each is great at something and can cover other fields well, it's just what they do good and great that makes 'em different
#16
Quote by Page/Rhoads
The Bill of Rights was part of the original Constitution. The Anti-Federalists wouldn't allow it to pass without it. If you mean the Articles of Confederation, then it would be less powerful because the federal government had virtually no powers under the Articles. Ask me if you need any other help man, I got a 5 on my ap gov test.

No. The Bill was added to the Constitution almost immediately after its ratification, but I don't believe it's part of the original document. They were the first ten amendments-changes to the original document.
Please excuse my godawful username. I was thirteen.
#17
Quote by Thrasher51
No. The Bill was added to the Constitution almost immediately after its ratification, but I don't believe it's part of the original document. They were the first ten amendments-changes to the original document.


The Constitution was signed into law in 1787. The Bill of Rights was added in 1791.
Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
#18
Quote by Page/Rhoads
The Constitution was signed into law in 1787. The Bill of Rights was added in 1791.

Exactly...you said they were part of the original Constitution, which by your own admission they are not.
Please excuse my godawful username. I was thirteen.
#20
The time at which the parts of the Constitution were enacted doesn't affect them in any way. The amendments are a part of the Constitution just as much as the preamble and 7 articles.
I'm rgrockr and I do not approve of this message.
#21
I think its just the fact that they were ADDED makes the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) more important than if they were just included in the original Constitution. The fact that it went through the lengthy amendment process of ratification and all that mumbo jumbo, so (relatively) soon after the Constitution was ratified, showed the people of the U.S. that the Constitution wasn't totally set in stone, and could be changed. I think thats why its more significant that it was added later, because in the end, it doesn't matter WHEN it was added, once its an amendment, it's considered "in" the Constitution, as if it had been there all along.
#22
Quote by Jackal58
US Constitution consists of a preamble and 7 articles
The first 10 amendments and the 17 subsequent ones are intended to clarify or amend the original 7 articles.
That is all. It's not rocket science.

Nope, that's not rocket science. Another thing it isn't is an answer to the question.


Presumably, any amendment to the constitution would have to conform to the already-accepted Constitution. Therefore it would be extremely difficult to pass any amendment to the Constitution that contradicts anything already in it. So if the Bill of Rights was part of the original document, it would be very difficult to remove them and they would place a serious limit on future amendments. So I think they would be more powerful.

But I'm Canadian. I have no rights.
Quote by BeefWellington

what's the point in being "philiosophical"?

Interesting question...
#23
Quote by Holy.
Would the Bill of Rights be more or less powerful if it was included in the original Constitution?

I don't see how it would be more powerful, nor how it would be less powerful.

Less powerful. They would have rushed it. And states would have been pressured to sign the constitution with a weak bill of rights because they needed the constitution. It was probably better to wait.
Quote by laxduck
The difference in power comes from the fact they are Amendments, not part of the original Constitution. And as Amendments they can be repealed, such as the 18th Amendment which banned all alcohol sales in the US, which was later repealed by the 21st Amendment. Had the sale of alcohol been banned in the original Constitution an entirely new Constitution would have to be drafted and ratified in order to change that.

So being included in the original Constitution would have made the Bill of Rights more powerful.

I think they would have made a weaker bill of rights for that very reason.
Last edited by captaincrunk at Aug 25, 2010,
#24
This question is vague.

Are they asking if the Bill of Rights, as is, would be a more powerful document if it was part of the orignial constitution, or are they asking if the bill would have been weaker if it was written earlier?
Quote by BeefWellington

what's the point in being "philiosophical"?

Interesting question...