On May 16th, history won’t just be remembered ….it will be honored, celebrated, and lived.
Join us at the Constitution Creation Day Banquet in Eustis, Florida, as we come together to recognize the 250th birthday of our Republic a milestone that deserves more than just acknowledgment… it deserves action, unity, & purpose.
Hosted by Cj Blancett, Chairman of the Constitution Party of Florida, Lake County Chapter
A gathering of Americans who believe in the Constitution
What to Expect:
• A delicious catered dinner
• Cash bar
• Patriotic ceremony honoring our founding ideals
• Silent auction & door prizes
• Fellowship with like-minded citizens
Master of Ceremonies: Josie Gentry
Keynote Speaker: Paul Engel
Entertainment: Kyle Velez
Location: Eustis Women’s Club
Date: Saturday, May 16
Time: 5:00 PM – 9:00 PM
This is more than an event, it’s a moment to recommit to the principles that built this nation and ensure they endure for generations to come.
Tickets available at Eventbrite.com
Looking forward to seeing you there!
Why do the scholars think the Bill of Rights is separate from the Constitution?
Just have you read the Constitution, I had studied from the the views of our founders.
This is not a debate; I am pointing out a fact of law within Article V:
“…shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution…”
All the amendments within the Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution, meaning they are ratified pursuant to Article V. Furthermore, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights—which, like all passed laws, begins with an explanation of its purpose—acknowledges the following:
“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.”
This explicitly ties the Bill of Rights to Article V.
Therefore, if you are a constitutionalist, a citizen of the United States and of the States wherein you reside, and a person within the United States( this is our title) you must follow the rules and regulations of our Constitution. This includes Supreme Court Justices.
How can anyone claim the Bill of Rights is separate from the Constitution? It is not. Consider this: if only ten amendments were passed initially, what of the “original” 11th amendment (the Congressional Apportionment Amendment) that was proposed but not ratified then? Or the 27th Amendment, which was proposed with the Bill of Rights but not ratified until 1992? Additionally, look at the 11th Amendment, which restricts the judicial power under Article III. Is that separate from the Constitution, or is it a clarified power within Article III?
I am simply following the rules and regulations provided to us by the Founders. It is incorrect to suggest we created a separate Constitution for “people in the United States” when our State Constitutions and the 14th Amendment already address these issues.
I am not debating; I am pointing out facts of law regarding the Constitution of the United States of America for “We the People of the United States,” not merely for “people in the United States.”
And if these amendments are written into the Constitution then we must follow article 6 to where only the state judges can act as Federal interpretation of the Constitution against their laws. And not the Supreme Court justices. So they cannot amend the Constitution by their resolutions.
So why can’t we follow the facts of law, what is written in the principle of how bills are created to be ratified, which the Preambles will still be part of the law, called the Constitution for the United States and the Bill of Rights, inserted into Article 5.
A federalist, is a citizen of the United States and of the State wherein they reside, we the people of the United States.
The short answer to your opening question is most people who call themselves “constituional scholars” “constitutional law scholars”. Meaning, they don’t study the Constitution, but the chain of opinions of judges about what they think the Constitution should say.
The idea that the Bill of Rights is somehow separate from the Constitution comes from a misreading of an unconstitutional SCOTUS decision in the case Barron v. Baltimore. I covered this in some detail in my article The Bill of Rights and the States.