This is circling back again, again to jj's original point - which is the foundation of it all.

The Constitution was a framework for self governance.  Not a creation of a nanny state whose purpose is to control the people.

Amendments 1-10 are the Bill of Rights, which protects the rights of the individual.  The individual is not ignored until 9.  1-10 covers the individual and what the established federal government can't touch.  The creation of the Constitution itself was born from the Declaration of Independence.  They explicitly included these for the same reason you're suggesting the idea came about later.  That if it weren't explicitly stated, they entire purpose of the creation of our Constitution would be lost.

What you're missing is that the foundation of the Constitution is the Declaration of Independence.  There isn't a Constitution without the Declaration of Independence, on which its foundations are based.  The people, not federal government, comes first.  That's the entire point of rights being inalienable... that not every single right had to be explicitly written, outlined, or amended for it to be a freedom that couldn't be encroached by man (in this case the Constitution)... that they were given by a creator and could not be taken by man-made government of any level.

It's also why the first and second amendments are so important.  If there should be a necessary call for another such declaration of independence, we the people would have the means to begin again if necessary.  Were our federal government continue to bloat unsustainably as it's currently doing, I'd expect a convention of states to occur before it gets anywhere near that point in order to clean up the mess.

It will never get there, half the people of this country either want government to be their daddy or they are too stupid, lazy, or ignorant to care.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

This is circling back again, again to jj's original point - which is the foundation of it all.

The Constitution was a framework for self governance.  Not a creation of a nanny state whose purpose is to control the people.

Amendments 1-10 are the Bill of Rights, which protects the rights of the individual.  The individual is not ignored until 9.  1-10 covers the individual and what the established federal government can't touch.  The creation of the Constitution itself was born from the Declaration of Independence.  They explicitly included these for the same reason you're suggesting the idea came about later.  That if it weren't explicitly stated, they entire purpose of the creation of our Constitution would be lost.

What you're missing is that the foundation of the Constitution is the Declaration of Independence.  There isn't a Constitution without the Declaration of Independence, on which its foundations are based.  The people, not federal government, comes first.  That's the entire point of rights being inalienable... that not every single right had to be explicitly written, outlined, or amended for it to be a freedom that couldn't be encroached by man (in this case the Constitution)... that they were given by a creator and could not be taken by man-made government of any level.

It's also why the first and second amendments are so important.  If there should be a necessary call for another such declaration of independence, we the people would have the means to begin again if necessary.  Were our federal government continue to bloat unsustainably as it's currently doing, I'd expect a convention of states to occur before it gets anywhere near that point in order to clean up the mess.

I don't totally disagree.  The constitution certainly wasn't meant to have a federal nanny state result. 
But, originally, it could have allowed for individual states to be nanny states if the desire was there.

I was mostly surprised that you said "the first thing the Constitution does is establish individual rights".  That was a claim of fact, and it was totally wrong. Look at what order words and ideas appear in the text.  You have a preamble that doesn't mention individual rights, and then a description of how Congress will be set up that also doesn't touch individual rights, and so on.
If you meant to say that "the only correct way to read the Constitution is to begin with individual rights as a precept," well, that is an opinion.  Some people have that opinion.  
But it is very much a minority view and not followed by the US Supreme Court.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarationism

---

This is circling back again, again to jj's original point - which is the foundation of it all.

The Constitution was a framework for self governance.  Not a creation of a nanny state whose purpose is to control the people.

Amendments 1-10 are the Bill of Rights, which protects the rights of the individual.  The individual is not ignored until 9.  1-10 covers the individual and what the established federal government can't touch.  The creation of the Constitution itself was born from the Declaration of Independence.  They explicitly included these for the same reason you're suggesting the idea came about later.  That if it weren't explicitly stated, they entire purpose of the creation of our Constitution would be lost.

What you're missing is that the foundation of the Constitution is the Declaration of Independence.  There isn't a Constitution without the Declaration of Independence, on which its foundations are based.  The people, not federal government, comes first.  That's the entire point of rights being inalienable... that not every single right had to be explicitly written, outlined, or amended for it to be a freedom that couldn't be encroached by man (in this case the Constitution)... that they were given by a creator and could not be taken by man-made government of any level.

It's also why the first and second amendments are so important.  If there should be a necessary call for another such declaration of independence, we the people would have the means to begin again if necessary.  Were our federal government continue to bloat unsustainably as it's currently doing, I'd expect a convention of states to occur before it gets anywhere near that point in order to clean up the mess.

It will never get there, half the people of this country either want government to be their daddy or they are too stupid, lazy, or ignorant to care.

I agree.  It is nearly impossible to imagine a convention of States happening with the intent of reducing the power of the federal government.  34 separate legislative bodies, who do not have regular communication with each other, would all have to coordinate a time and place to meet against an active campaign of propaganda and disinformation coming from Washington.  A coup, whether led by the President or not, seems more likely.  A convention of states that is intended to increase the power of the federal government is more likely because in that case the leaders in washington would cooperate and facilitate communication between the states.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That's what "blessings of liberty unto our prosperity" means it was 1789 that use a lot of Flowery language

---

That's what "blessings of liberty unto our prosperity" means it was 1789 that use a lot of Flowery language

All that "blessings of liberty" has to mean is that we are "liberated" from Britain and from kings.  Those were the unifying themes of the war.
They didn't agree about what liberties individuals had or didn't have and they weren't ready to have that discussion.
The constitutional convention dodged that topic.
The bill of rights sort of addressed it two years later, but it didn't apply to the States.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That's what "blessings of liberty unto our prosperity" means it was 1789 that use a lot of Flowery language

All that "blessings of liberty" has to mean is that we are "liberated" from Britain and from kings.  Those were the unifying themes of the war.
They didn't agree about what liberties individuals had or didn't have and they weren't ready to have that discussion.
The constitutional convention dodged that topic.
The bill of rights sort of addressed it two years later, but it didn't apply to the States.

HAS to mean?  Lol.  At least you acknowledge ur grabbing at straws.  

The unifying theme of the war was articulated in the doi.  Individual rights vs. The rights of the monarch was critical to that.  Also critical was the "thousand tyrants" meaning the idea of a legislature so powerful that it could unilaterally violate individual rights in the same manner as a king.  That's why we have a system of limited government through constitutional republicanism.  This stands in stark contrast to contemporary constitutions and charters that express or guarantee rights of the state on behalf of the collective at the expense of the individual.

---

Britain is hardly relevant any longer on the world stage.

The US has led the world for quite some time.  Should the left get their way, that will cease sooner than later.

The Greeks, the Romans... the greatest societies (British Empire as well, curious you'd pull that one out of nowhere) all fell, and fell from within.  Just as what's being attempted today through similar division.  What built our great nation was our freedom, and the unending pursuit of it.  Ironic that our destruction is likely to come from those who would abuse, undermine, and destroy that foundation as they slouch towards the over-governance we long put behind to make our country the power it is.

Your knowledge of world history seems superficial.
The Greeks were conquered by the Macedons.
The Romans were invaded by Germanic tribes many times and tried to make peace with them by interbreeding and even allowing Germans to be emperor. Eventually, the will to resist was lost because it was Germans fighting Germans.  Even so, the Empire persisted in Constantinople for another 1000 years before the Turks defeated it.
The British Empire was mostly defeated by two costly wars with Germany.  It was after the second world war that the empire was devolved and the welfare state began.

The Greeks and Romans were only defeated at the end of their fall. They were at their weakest. A strong wind could've taken them out of the picture. The Romans cemented their fall when they split the empire into two, and it was shortly after that when they fell to the Germans. I think you're taking the literal end as their fall, but they fell long before their empires were destroyed.

---

All that "blessings of liberty" has to mean is that we are "liberated" from Britain and from kings.  Those were the unifying themes of the war.
They didn't agree about what liberties individuals had or didn't have and they weren't ready to have that discussion.
The constitutional convention dodged that topic.
The bill of rights sort of addressed it two years later, but it didn't apply to the States.

HAS to mean?  Lol.  At least you acknowledge ur grabbing at straws.  

The unifying theme of the war was articulated in the doi.  Individual rights vs. The rights of the monarch was critical to that.  Also critical was the "thousand tyrants" meaning the idea of a legislature so powerful that it could unilaterally violate individual rights in the same manner as a king.  That's why we have a system of limited government through constitutional republicanism.  This stands in stark contrast to contemporary constitutions and charters that express or guarantee rights of the state on behalf of the collective at the expense of the individual.

You're confused.  You're quoting a Mel Gibson movie as if it's history.  
That quote actually came from a loyalist minister in Boston.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mather_Byles

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

All that "blessings of liberty" has to mean is that we are "liberated" from Britain and from kings.  Those were the unifying themes of the war.
They didn't agree about what liberties individuals had or didn't have and they weren't ready to have that discussion.
The constitutional convention dodged that topic.
The bill of rights sort of addressed it two years later, but it didn't apply to the States.

HAS to mean?  Lol.  At least you acknowledge ur grabbing at straws.  

The unifying theme of the war was articulated in the doi.  Individual rights vs. The rights of the monarch was critical to that.  Also critical was the "thousand tyrants" meaning the idea of a legislature so powerful that it could unilaterally violate individual rights in the same manner as a king.  That's why we have a system of limited government through constitutional republicanism.  This stands in stark contrast to contemporary constitutions and charters that express or guarantee rights of the state on behalf of the collective at the expense of the individual.

Let me explain as clearly as possible. I avoided bringing this up because it upsets people even more, but it is the truth.
The conception of individual rights which they had in New England in 1776 or 1787, if put down into words, would have banned slavery.
The topic was dodged so that at the state level, the individual rights of those designated as slaves could be ignored.
The dodge was so complete that the topic of citizenship, and whether must be a citizen to bring a case into court, was also dodged, leading the Supreme Court in Dred Scott to fill in the blanks, saying that slaves, even freed slaves, were not citizens and that non-citizens could not sue in federal court.  This ruling surprised many people at the time who thought they understood the Constitution.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

HAS to mean?  Lol.  At least you acknowledge ur grabbing at straws.  

The unifying theme of the war was articulated in the doi.  Individual rights vs. The rights of the monarch was critical to that.  Also critical was the "thousand tyrants" meaning the idea of a legislature so powerful that it could unilaterally violate individual rights in the same manner as a king.  That's why we have a system of limited government through constitutional republicanism.  This stands in stark contrast to contemporary constitutions and charters that express or guarantee rights of the state on behalf of the collective at the expense of the individual.

Let me explain as clearly as possible. I avoided bringing this up because it upsets people even more, but it is the truth.
The conception of individual rights which they had in New England in 1776 or 1787, if put down into words, would have banned slavery.
The topic was dodged so that at the state level, the individual rights of those designated as slaves could be ignored.
The dodge was so complete that the topic of citizenship, and whether must be a citizen to bring a case into court, was also dodged, leading the Supreme Court in Dred Scott to fill in the blanks, saying that slaves were not citizens and that non-citizens could not sue in federal court.  This ruling surprised many people at the time who thought they understood the Constitution.

Why would that upset people?  And ur right.  Slavery was and is antithetical to individual rights and thus the do I was cited in deliberations of the 13th and 14th amendments.  The concept was at such stark contrast that the practice begin to die out almost immediately after the signing of the Constitution so much so that it took government intervention and the publicizing of the cost to maintain slavery at the turn of the 19th century otherwise the practice would have died out 50 to 60 years before the Civil War.

The political realities of maintaining the Union in the early days of our nation in no way retroactively strips the importance of individual rights to our founding in our current legal moral and social traditions.

---