Amendment idea: the Bill of Rights must not be subject to repeal

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I think it's time we make the Bill of Rights an "entrenched clause" that cannot be subject to repeal.

Is there any logical reason why we shouldn't? There's no conceivable situation that could justify repealing part of the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights did not create the rights listed therein. It merely lists rights that already existed and gives them legal recognition.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Bandit, do you support the 2nd Amendment? How about the 10th?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Bandit, do you support the 2nd Amendment? How about the 10th?

I support both. The Bill of Rights is a package deal.

[Benj]

Bandit, do you support the 2nd Amendment? How about the 10th?

I support both. The Bill of Rights is a package deal.

This is an odd assertion, given that there were originally 17 Articles in the Bill of Rights, later narrowed down to 12 by the Senate. Two of those 12 Articles in the Bill of Rights were rejected, and one never made it into the Constitution. (The other was later ratified as the 27th Amendment.) That hardly sounds like a package deal to me.

In any case, it's impossible, as you could always repeal the clause that makes the Bill of Rights unable to be repealed. And, if there were actually public support for repeal of one or more Amendments, I don't think the public would be held back by the word of the Constitution alone.

[osideguy92]

Second Amendment needs to be repealed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Bandit, do you support the 2nd Amendment? How about the 10th?

I support both. The Bill of Rights is a package deal.

This is an odd assertion, given that there were originally 17 Articles in the Bill of Rights, later narrowed down to 12 by the Senate. Two of those 12 Articles in the Bill of Rights were rejected, and one never made it into the Constitution. (The other was later ratified as the 27th Amendment.) That hardly sounds like a package deal to me.

In any case, it's impossible, as you could always repeal the clause that makes the Bill of Rights unable to be repealed. And, if there were actually public support for repeal of one or more Amendments, I don't think the public would be held back by the word of the Constitution alone.

Not if it is added onto Article VII (I beleive it is seven, if not I have been over corrupted by Atlasia then. ) as a restriction onto the amendment process. That is how they shielded against any anti-slave trade prohibitions until 1808 and how they ensured the preservation of the Senate as representing the states equally. Presently the only active restriction on Article VII is that in order to deprive a state of its equal representation in the Senate, you have to get that state's consent, which is still a path, but an extremely difficult one. The prohibiting of Anti-Slave trade amendments was a complete prohibition on any alterations regarding the matter, but it was self-sunsetting with a specified date in 1808.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I agree that none of the amendments need to be changed or repealed (except possibly the Second, for clarification purposes), but where is the urgent need for this proposal?

[Antonio the Sixth]

lolno

We should have an entirely new Constitution every 50 years.

[Vosem]

The thing is that you could just go through the constitutional process to repeal your proposed amendment, then repeal something from the Bill of Rights. What could be reasonable is a proposed bill to make altering the Bill of Rights (and presumably the Amendment itself) subject to higher standards; for instance, going through the existing process, then pass in a national referendum, which might require a very high minimum turnout and a supermajority. You might also have issues as to what exactly constitutes the Bill of Rights (is the 27th part of it or not, since it was historically proposed as part of it), and whether other Amendments (such as the Civil War Amendments; or the Civil Rights Amendments) or sections of the Constitution are worthy of the same protection.

A 'protective Amendment' that merely requires you to go through the process twice isn't much of a roadblock. Extra things that must be accomplished is. But this has to be thought through first.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I actually think this might be a good idea, except that the Bill of Rights will probably never be repealed anyway (except possible the Second Amendment.)