The Preamble to the Bill of Rights

**Rush Limbaugh** · October 23, 2007, 12:53 AM

Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of our Constitution.

There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.
End the deception.

Yes, Doubting Thomas's:
There is a Preamble to the US Bill of Rights!

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." Thomas Jefferson, 1823

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson, 1823

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. [The last paragraph states that the US Bill of Rights are "ARTICLES in addition to, "and Amendment" of the Constitution..." This clause clarifies that the "ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution...," is the entire bill, with it's Preamble. The Bill of Rights itself, is therefore the Amendment, and the finally ratified ARTICLES are the different parts of that Amendment. This is the reason, the 1st ten Amendments to the US Constitution are commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights.

The US Bill of Rights is an Amendment with different ARTICLES, and with instruction's at the top of the Bill declaring that the ARTICLES in the Amendment have both declaratory and restrictive clauses, and that these same type of declaratory and restrictive clauses are also found in the main body of the Constitution, and that these clauses are not to be misconstructed or abused in a manner which will alter their true meaning & intent. This is a common and acceptable practice in the application of legislative Bill's, and the Bill's true interpretation.]

"I do then, with sincere zeal, wish an inviolable preservation of our present federal Constitution, according to the true sense in which it was adopted by the states, that in which it was advocated by its friends, and not that which its enemies apprehended, who therefore became its enemies." 1799

"The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me [as President] according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption--a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they denounced as possible." 1801

"The framers of our constitution certainly supposed they had guarded, as well their government against destruction by treason, as their citizens against oppression under pretense of it [treason]; and if these ends are not attained, it is of importance to inquire by what means, more effectual, they may be secured." Thomas Jefferson, 1787

The Constitution For The United States
Its Sources and Its Application

This MOST IMPORTANT PART of the Bill of Rights -- the PREAMBLE which tells SPECIFICALLY that the Bill of Rights was to make sure the government knew it was limited to the powers stated in the Constitution, and if it didn't, the Amendments spell out the Rights of the People the government couldn't change. Our revisionist historians ALWAYS leave this off the Constitution!!! It is imperative that the complete text be included in any study, interpretation or construction of the contents and the Limitations of government imposed by the Constitution for the United States.

**Rush Limbaugh** · October 23, 2007, 09:36 AM

So does nobody realize the significance of this. It means theve really trampled all over the constitution.

**Rhah** · October 23, 2007, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh

So does nobody realize the significance of this. It means theve really trampled all over the constitution.

I don't think anyone cares Rush, they've all been dulled to this type of stuff. The Sad fact is that Apathy is a bigger threat to western civilisation than terrorism, but because an apathetic population suits those in power (no matter what side of the political spectrum they claim to be on) nothing will ever be done about it and it will only get worse.

Have you forgotten to take your Soma today or something?

**Maverick** · October 23, 2007, 07:50 PM

Rush Is America and So Can You!

Originally Posted by Rhah

I don't think anyone cares Rush, they've all been dulled to this type of stuff. The Sad fact is that Apathy is a bigger threat to western civilisation than terrorism, but because an apathetic population suits those in power (no matter what side of the political spectrum they claim to be on) nothing will ever be done about it and it will only get worse.

Sounds like this Einstein quote I read here: "the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them." I do believe the liberal pundits are infantalizing American politics, talking about Obama's flag pin and Hillary's dress and Romney's teeth and whatever nonsense instead of real issues. I would add ignorant and childish to apathetic for the perfect trinity.

**Hookah Smoking Caterpiller** · October 23, 2007, 05:58 PM

the US connie has been trampled on since day one.

**Bokks** · October 24, 2007, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by Modern Life is Rubbish

the US connie has been trampled on since day one.

Actually, as much as for the most part this is untrue, the sad fact is that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, the leading author of the constitution and the leading author to the declaration upon with the constitution is based upon, outright and balatantly trampled on the Supreme Court, stating that they had no power and therefore they could do whatever they wanted.

Mostly, though, Americans take a very Lincoln-esc view, which I see as unfortunate, but hey. We break the constitution to save and preserve the constitution.
The simple fact that the constitution outlined limited government, and the world needs its police force to be very unlimited, aspects do need to be "bent".
the first ten amendments, however, I do believe should be implicitly expressedly and literally defined, evaluated and upheld.

**Rush Limbaugh** · October 24, 2007, 04:36 PM

d Thomas Jefferson, the leading author of the constitution

Jefferson wrote the declaration of Independence not the constitution. Madison was the leading author of the constitution.

outright and balatantly trampled on the Supreme Court, stating that they had no power and therefore they could do whatever they wanted.

No they correctly said the courts did not have the power of Judicial review. Plus your now saying the guys who wrote the document didnt know what it was about.

**Rhah** · October 25, 2007, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by Thutmose

Rush Is America and So Can You!

Sounds like this Einstein quote I read here: "the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them." I do believe the liberal pundits are infantalizing American politics, talking about Obama's flag pin and Hillary's dress and Romney's teeth and whatever nonsense instead of real issues. I would add ignorant and childish to apathetic for the perfect trinity.

Thats a great quote, from a great mind, but I think you've missed the point as to what he was trying to say. In the very next sentence you mention "Liberal pundits", which leads me to believe that you've already fallen into the exact trap that Einstein was warning against, which is that the tools of government are used to shape the way that the masses (IE: You, I , and everyone else you know) think..... They don't call it a school of thought for nothing. After all, you are being taught to think a certain way from the moment you are born.
Anyway, I'm digressing.... my point was that it doesn't matter what "side" of politics these pundits are supposed to represent, they all serve the same purpose, which is trivialise politics to the point that (as has pretty much already happened) the majority of the population accept the status quo.

Now, I wonder how Britney Spears is getting on in the fight to reclaim her children.....

Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh

I think he was reffering to people like you who have been dulled to this. Admit it you just dont care.

That was exactly what I was referring too.

**Bokks** · October 25, 2007, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh

Jefferson wrote the declaration of Independence not the constitution. Madison was the leading author of the constitution.

I am perfectly aware of what he wrote:

"James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, the leading author of the constitution and the leading author to the declaration "

.
That's were I meant to put "respectively", to mean that Madison was the leading force behind the ratification of the consitution and Jefferson the man who wrote the document upon which the constitution was framed.
Even without "respectively" I thought that was fairly clear. Sorry about that.

Originally Posted by Rush Limbaugh

No they correctly said the courts did not have the power of Judicial review. Plus your now saying the guys who wrote the document didnt know what it was about.

...no, the Supreme Courts power resides solely in judicial review of constitutionality in all cases "in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States" etc. etc. you get te idea.
...dang it! The Supremes Courts website only has recent things... that's dumb. Gotta go Wiki...

Ok, how on Earth does the Supreme Court not have documents on Marbury v. Madison? That was their own freakin' case!!!
Okay, I found a little bit to jog my memory... the whole thing was about Adams midnight appointments, and three of them were not cleared by Madison and Jefferson. One of them, Marbury, took the case to the supreme court. Now, the supreme court would have ruled in favor of Marbury, that the restriction that Tommy and James put on them dissallowing them their appointed jobs was unconstitutional, but Madison specifically had made it public that should the courts make such a claim he and president Jefferson would not follow the ruling, as the only power the supreme court had was by judicial review, and had no grounds upon which to support their rulings--my prof made the analogy to a Judge Dredd type Supreme Court Cop coming in upholding the rulings, that made me laugh...

"Unconstitutional!"

-- Anyway, the chief justice... Marshall? Yes, John Marshall. He was the first really powerful chief justice and gave the court more power by not ruling that Madison was wrong, thereby doing... nothing, but actually denying the claims of Marbury on the grounds that Adams' actions were unconstitutional, thereby giving the court greater power of judicial review.

Plus, I was hardley saying that the guys who wrote it didn't know what it was about, I'm saying they knowingly stomped on it when it suited them. Not the best image for the new country.

**Rush Limbaugh** · October 25, 2007, 04:29 PM

..no, the Supreme Courts power resides solely in judicial review of constitutionality in all cases "in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States" etc. etc. you get te idea.

Yes thay do have that power over all of those things but not over the legislative and executive branches. In other words they were charged with judicial review of state laws and treaties but not with judicial review of laws passed by congress or the president. You show me in there where it gives them that power?

Plus, I was hardley saying that the guys who wrote it didn't know what it was about, I'm saying they knowingly stomped on it when it suited them. Not the best image for the new country.

Wrong again. Jefferson is the father of strict interpretation of the constitution. If he says it says they dont have the power I take that as a fact.

**Feliks** · October 23, 2007, 07:05 PM

The last bit:

This MOST IMPORTANT PART of the Bill of Rights -- the PREAMBLE which tells SPECIFICALLY that the Bill of Rights was to make sure the government knew it was limited to the powers stated in the Constitution, and if it didn't, the Amendments spell out the Rights of the People the government couldn't change. Our revisionist historians ALWAYS leave this off the Constitution!!! It is imperative that the complete text be included in any study, interpretation or construction of the contents and the Limitations of government imposed by the Constitution for the United States.

I don't see how any of this is that revealing , the stance on limitations is included in the main body of the Bill of Rights (9th & 10th Amendments, I believe). Though if you take the Elastic Clause combined with something like the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court can give the National government a lot of implied powers.

I think most of the basis for the expansion of national powers came out of the early 19th century, with Mcculloch vs. Maryland and Gibbons vs. Ogden. There's your problem right there.

**Rush Limbaugh** · October 23, 2007, 07:27 PM

I don't see how any of this is that revealing , the stance on limitations is included in the main body of the Bill of Rights (9th & 10th Amendments, I believe)

The tenth amendment is treaty asd just an ideall these days. They claim the FFs didnt mean it. Just as they warned us they wouldnt and put down our rights in plain english with explanations and even notes on the meetings just to make sure we got it right. Now you know why the anti federalists were so paranoid.

It also started with the 14th amendment that set blacks free and enslaved the rest of us and took away our rights. I think this is like the 3rd time Ive made a refference to this. I must say Im surprised it hasnt gotten a reply. I was expecting some scornful comment long ago.

**El Brujo** · October 23, 2007, 07:39 PM

It also started with the 14th amendment that set blacks free and enslaved the rest of us and took away our rights. I think this is like the 3rd time Ive made a refference to this.

Which specific section of the amendment are you referring to?

**Rush Limbaugh** · October 23, 2007, 07:54 PM

Which specific section of the amendment are you referring to?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Looks pretty nice right? But lets remember why this was written

he citizenship clause (also known as the naturalization clause[1]) refers to a provision, in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution at section one, clause 1. This clause represented Congress's reversal of that portion of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all people born in the United States; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment enshrined this principle in the Constitution in order to stop the Supreme Court from ruling it unconstitutional for want of congressional authority to pass such a law, or from a future Congress altering it by a bare majority vote.

It was to make sure that that blacks would be citizens of the United States. But do they get rights? No they get the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Still not so bad. Until you add this part

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

This means you are subjects of congress. Thats backwards.

At first this amendment was only used for blacks but it was later expanded to include us all. We the people have rights. US citizens have privileges or immunities granted by congress.

Here this guy explains it better

Constitution Class 5 of 7, for Real Patriot..