The constituion was ratified in 1788.
The bill of rights were ratified in 1792.
making them part of the constitution
1 Like
Yeah. They are amendments.
which are no less part of the constitution than any other part of it
Correct.
Some posters here were doubting they were amendments.
no, some posters were claiming they were separate from the constitution. theyâre not. they are a part of it
They are now.
They werenât then.
They remain amendments to teh constitution, which makes them part of the governing document. But they are in fact amendments.
which two posters are in denial of.
Itâs something that some people donât get.
The amendments were ratified two years after the constitution was in effect.
For two years there was no codified rights.
With ratification there was.
Allan
I donât think humans should be compared to animals. It wasnât my, or any lib, counter argument. We are able to critically think and have reason far beyond a lion.
For that reason⊠how we treat our unborn is made with a level of intelligence beyond a lion.
Ok⊠then you say
If you add abortion to âillegal homicidesâ then you are making abortions an unlawful killing of a person⊠right?
You just wonât stop until even a dumb animal could offer evidence that your statement that pro-life ideology is completely rooted in religion is false.
https://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/
Yes the pro life movement is rooted in religion.
You when down this weird path of stating that even animals are smarter than humans because they protect their unborn. Iâm sorry but humans are smarter than an animal, and it could be that the animals are dumb for not considering abortion.
If you slow down and read⊠I said âprolifeâ. That is a political movement that was started by evangelicals after roe v Wade. Even today the LARGE MAJORITY of prolifers consider themselves Christian.
Look I can post an opinion piece too
Heâs right about linked.
The Bill of Rights was a condition for ratification. Back when men kept their word.
3 Likes
Are you suggesting this isnât your post?
Hereâs what keeps coming to mind when I read your idiotic posts:
What was that in response to? Come on⊠post the original post.
Again Iâve stated very plainly, animals and humans should not be compared when it comes to cognitive function.
Can I assume you disagree?
He didnât say that. Why did you make that up?
It was YOUR counter-argument to a post demonstrating that pro-life is NOT âentirely based in religionâ.
Yet you say it wasnât your counter argument.
See, this is another example of why I hold contempt for your posts. The volume of dishonesty from your keyboard is massive. And you canât even keep your own posts straight.
Go bother someone else. Once again, youâve used up my patience for your garbage.
I didnât say that.
I said I wasnât the one who made the original argument.
