I don't think it is because even the bill of rights did not (and could not) amend the first 7 articles and it couldn't because the Federalist Party was too shrewd.
What it replaced potentially gave absolute equality before the law by setting a good example for the whole world by not forcing union and inequality over liberty, while the Federalists made it very clear that their legislation (I say "legislation" because the "US Constitution" is not law at all... I don't think it adheres to any one ideological policy like the Articles of Confederation did) did not attempt at all to give equality before the law and the 14th Amendment pretty much ended any equality before the law that the Democratic Party had been so kind to allow the people... it was what the Federalist Party initially tried to propose for the Bill of Rights (the Radical Republicans pulled the ideas from the Library of Congress and maybe the criminally genius General Sherman). It has crushed the rights of not only the States and the people, but also organized labor, put corporations (artificial/legal constructs) ahead of people, it has crushed the rights of the unborn, of congregations, brought church closer to state (i.e., the pro-centralization, traditionally fascist US Supreme Court hears cases that should belong to the States and the people), and it has seldom prevented the States from encroaching on individual liberty (Jim Crow was nationally inspired as was Buck v VA and Buck v VA took away everyone else's liberties plus it gave the States the greenlight for eugenics due to Justice Holmes' clever decision).
I should note that the 1st 12 Amendments were kind of like an allegory of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve started out as a council, then it's first ten chairmen were not so terrible, the 13th accelerated the growth of govt (it continued to make slavery a national issue but gave liberty back to some just as Greenspan had better justifications and was far more clever than his evil successor who thinks he knows it all), and now the 14th (bernanke) is trying to basically make the Federal Reserve a pure 100% greenbackist institution. Bernanke is very much doing what the greenbackers want and he'd gladly shift Congress the power fully if the fight was not lead by Kucinich, Sanders, and Dr. Paul (the former two are misguided and don't criticize as much because it has become very close to Congress just handing out money to institutions other than banks).
At the same time, I don't think the Anti-Federalists were perfect (some of them were against the Federalist Party because they thought the latter supported gold when a major foundation of the Federalist Party was paper money to be controlled by the surreal elite) and some of them felt entitled because they thought they won everyone independence from the Empire, but then the Federalists gave them some crumbs (daniel shays still died poor despite getting a pension from Federalist sponsored legislation) so the latter wouldn't look bad and could remain in power.
All of that said, I conclude that the "US Constution" was ratified by lies, deception, and force and it was meant to change the people rather than the other way around. Isn't my conclusion more right than wrong?
What it replaced potentially gave absolute equality before the law by setting a good example for the whole world by not forcing union and inequality over liberty, while the Federalists made it very clear that their legislation (I say "legislation" because the "US Constitution" is not law at all... I don't think it adheres to any one ideological policy like the Articles of Confederation did) did not attempt at all to give equality before the law and the 14th Amendment pretty much ended any equality before the law that the Democratic Party had been so kind to allow the people... it was what the Federalist Party initially tried to propose for the Bill of Rights (the Radical Republicans pulled the ideas from the Library of Congress and maybe the criminally genius General Sherman). It has crushed the rights of not only the States and the people, but also organized labor, put corporations (artificial/legal constructs) ahead of people, it has crushed the rights of the unborn, of congregations, brought church closer to state (i.e., the pro-centralization, traditionally fascist US Supreme Court hears cases that should belong to the States and the people), and it has seldom prevented the States from encroaching on individual liberty (Jim Crow was nationally inspired as was Buck v VA and Buck v VA took away everyone else's liberties plus it gave the States the greenlight for eugenics due to Justice Holmes' clever decision).
I should note that the 1st 12 Amendments were kind of like an allegory of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve started out as a council, then it's first ten chairmen were not so terrible, the 13th accelerated the growth of govt (it continued to make slavery a national issue but gave liberty back to some just as Greenspan had better justifications and was far more clever than his evil successor who thinks he knows it all), and now the 14th (bernanke) is trying to basically make the Federal Reserve a pure 100% greenbackist institution. Bernanke is very much doing what the greenbackers want and he'd gladly shift Congress the power fully if the fight was not lead by Kucinich, Sanders, and Dr. Paul (the former two are misguided and don't criticize as much because it has become very close to Congress just handing out money to institutions other than banks).
At the same time, I don't think the Anti-Federalists were perfect (some of them were against the Federalist Party because they thought the latter supported gold when a major foundation of the Federalist Party was paper money to be controlled by the surreal elite) and some of them felt entitled because they thought they won everyone independence from the Empire, but then the Federalists gave them some crumbs (daniel shays still died poor despite getting a pension from Federalist sponsored legislation) so the latter wouldn't look bad and could remain in power.
All of that said, I conclude that the "US Constution" was ratified by lies, deception, and force and it was meant to change the people rather than the other way around. Isn't my conclusion more right than wrong?
Yes, I got it from celebritytypes.com actually. Intuitives only see eye to eye with intuitives. "S" types tend to be type A personalities too much and they don't like putting up with the stuff my group does (S take it all seriously because they're not as bright and I'm probably going to get murdered by someone with keen senses one day) and they're the tyranny of the majority... they even fall for dickheads like Lincoln (they don't fucking know Lincoln!) that I wouldn't have much trouble being a friend with since he tried to be cute about what he did and because he was just fucking crazy... he probably planned his own fucking assassination because I doubt he cared that he died, that's how sick, depressed, and psychotic he was... it doesn't excuse what he did and he deserved to die, but he was intuitive and logical as fuck. Sometimes I wonder if Hitler's goofy ass was Lincoln reincarnated (Himmler was the stupid, serious bitch, not Hitler and the latter pussied out after threatening to have him killed), except only Hitler was even more of a pussy and he was short and fat instead of tall and thin. Feeling types are generally more socially mature (Hitler was an exception) than people like me because they try to see eye to eye with everyone, but they only get limited success... they're constrained however because they are feeling and they can't change it. I have a personal letter from Bill Clinton because I used to worship him, then I found out about Dr. Paul and couldn't stand Clinton's lack of ethics (especially the fact that he seriously violated the NAP to further his political career). "S" types are angrier and it's hard for me to feel anymore sympathy for them although Dr. Paul does.
Facebook
Twitter