Do you think we would have been better off if we had ratified the proposed "Separation of Powers" amendment in the original "Bill of Rights?

[monorprise]

Do you think we would have been better off if we had ratified the proposed "Separation of Powers" amendment in the original "Bill of Rights?

" Art. 16. The powers delegated by the constitution to the government of the United States, shall be exercised as therein appropriated, so that the legislative shall never exercise the powers vested in the executive or judicial; nor the executive the powers vested in the legislative or judicial; nor the judicial the powers vested in the legislative or executive."

There were originally proposed 17 amendments in the first draft of the bill of right:
https://www.sethkaller.com/item/182-First-Draft-of-the-Bill-of-Rights:-17-Amendments-Approved-by-the-House

Some form of 12 of those amendments went on to be proposed to the States, 10 of them were ratified making what is now called "The Bill of Rights". Off the remaining 2, 1 was finally ratified by the required 2/3rds in may or June of 1992 becoming the 27th amendment, about 200 years after the other Bill of right.

The would be 16th of the original 17 however never passed the senate for unknown reasons but mirrors constitutional provisions already adopted by Massachusetts and Virginia at the time. Watch the video if you want to hear more about the history of this proposed amendment.

[Purpul]

[What would be the amendment? Needless to say, it makes no difference. The original construct of the US GOVERNMENT CORPORATION ended in 1999. Contracts had been written in adverb-verb, adjective-pronoun order of operations, modifying the translation/meaning which in turn would be a violation of former USC Title 18 § 1001, 1002 -FALSE & MISLEADING CONVEYANCE OF GRAMMAR. Visit https://www.lastflagstanding.com/, and https://www.fortheclaimofthelife.com/]

[monorprise]

The Amendments wording as original proposed and passed largely unmodified thou to the Senate was quoted right above the video.

[Purpul]

[https://youtu. be/ZiLaG9b8bbo]

[Lliam]

Separation of powers is not a human right, it's part of a system of government.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The Bill of Rights went on to list some of those rights or restrictions on government power over the people.

[monorprise]

@Lliam Obviously you haven't actually read "the bill of rights" in a while. Nor the Federal Constitution, as that line is from the Declaration 11 years earlier.

The "Bill of Rights" is NOT actually a list of rights but rather is written as a system of prohibitions on the Federal Government's power. Only protecting said rights by limiting the Federal Government's theoretical ability to violate them. Most of said limits were unnecessary as James Madison and others opposed to the "bill of rights" said in arguing against their inclusion as, the Federal Goverment already lacked such power in the Constitution.

[Lliam]

I obviously said "the Bill of Rights went on to list some of those rights *or restrictions* on government power over the people.

You said it much better after you were done acting superior.

I didn't say that the line from the Declaration of Independence was part of the Bill of Rights. It merely declares that there are such things as self-evident, unalienable rights.

I think you like to argue. Does everything have to be a confrontation?

[monorprise]

@Lliam I apologize for coming off as acting superior. Your right I do like to argue about this kind of intellectual legal topic in which I am most fascinated.

[Lliam]

Thanks, bro. Your response shows class. 👍🤝

Your first paragraph did raise my hackles. But second one was informed and made me know that you weren't just trolling.
What you might have done was find something I said that you agreed with and then gone on to share your views. Because, it seems to me that we basically agree on that issue.

Anyway, it's nothing. We're totally cool. I look forward to future conversations.

I like history, including the history we make every moment. Real history, not what we are fed. I'm also interested in heading off tyranny.

[Anonymous]

Separation of powers is in the main body of the Constitution, and is not a "right" of the people, which is what the Bill of Rights is for.

[monorprise]

I agree the Original Constitution which defines the separation did not require clarification.

That said the "Bill of Rights" are all simply limitations upon the Federal Goverment not really defining "rights" at all.

As it happens most of the 10 amendments that did pass were argued by people like James Madison (author of the original Constitution) as unnecessary as the original Constitutions never gave Washington such power in the first place.

So such this amendment that was among that original list is perfectly consistent with the others. No more out of place in such a list than the 9th or 10th amendments.

The real question which is frankly as as applicable to the amendments that did pass is whether or not they did as some opponents feared actually made the problem worse in giving future Federal politic ans a presumption of broad power with narrow exceptions rather than narrow power with additional spesfic prohibitions

[Purpul]

[Great, now you comprehend what is a slave-contract in corporate-autocracy-collusion. Study QUANTUM-GRAMMAR.]

[Purpul]

[https://youtu. be/ZiLaG9b8bbo]

[goaded]

So you do accept that the founders may not have got everything right in the constitution? :)

The thing they got most right was the ability to change it over time, in my opinion.

[monorprise]

@goaded Of course they didn't, Not even they believed they got everything right. They did however do a far better job than almost any other on earth.
Many of them were soo wise in they even largely correctly predicted how the system would fall.