Hacker News Reader

Comment by Throwawayaerlei | Hacker News Reader

You're ignoring the agreement made between the Federalist and Anti-Federalists, the latter led by none other hand Patrick Henry. The Bill of Rights was their price for accepting the Constitution, and nullifications of the former renders the whole compact null and void.

Given that a case can be made for even the Third Amendment, no quartering of soldiers in people's dwellings being abrogated by the surveillance state....

And is sure sounds like you think religion is a four letter word....

View on HN

I do not understand the point you are trying to make other than the last sentence. If you think pointing to a religions beliefs is treating it like a four letter word I think that has more to do with your feelings about them after their beliefs are put out into the open instead of hidden or eluded to.

What did you mean by “the nullifications of the former renders the whole compact null and void”? The Constitution is still valid or the Bill of Rights would have no affect, and it still doesn’t change some of the founders belief that the Constitution should not be permanent

The point is the Anti-Federalists said "No Bill of Rights, we won't observe the Constitution." Starting with New York I think this was made an explicit contingent condition of their ratification of the Constitution. Thus a compact, or covenant if you prefer.

Thus the Bill of Rights are special in a way no other Amendments are and cannot be abrogated without breaking the covenant that allowed the Constitution to become a thing in the first place.

I don’t know that I’ve ever heard this legal argument. Is there some paper on it? I can see how they are culturally and temporaly special in that the people at the time would not have joined without them but as far as I know they have less legal weight than any following amendment as they can change the text of any portion of the Constitution including the 10 amendments of the bill of rights

Reply on news.ycombinator.com