I'll make a brief response or two:
I don't “delete any and all”. I did in your case, after a previous private request (https://plus.google.com/u/0/114532675570920907037/posts/3L8ZUbpmsD3
) delete comments from you. Google+ is not a forum that is intended to encourage anonymous confrontation.
I do remember that you said some things about Ron Paul that got me thinking, and less fervent about my position on him. I did not ultimately vote for him in the primaries (caucuses in Kansas that year), and because of his position on homosexuality (or what I perceive it to be), I ultimately discouraged others from voting for him.
On the issue of rights, the 9th and 10th amendments explicitly show that the Bill of Rights are inclusive and not exhaustive. Consider the amendments:
IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (… and …) X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
We can clearly see that those are not intended to be all-encompassing.
Additionally, what does the statement "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" mean if the powers are elastically bound by the will of the courts of the agent's own choosing? If that is a tautology, then it doesn't belong in the Bill of Rights. If it is not, then it is a constraint, a limitation. If it is a tautological bound that ebbs and flows as our nine black-robed deities determine, then there is no right outside of those expounded earlier in the Bill of Rights, because the rest of them are the central government's as they are not fixed by anything but this fluid idea of constitutionality
which only flows and never ebbs (which is hyperbole of the most milquetoast order).
I don't know that your appeal to the work on the banks of the United States proves so much as you say. If you use later actions of signers of the Constitution to prove what they thought (or professed to think) at the time of the signing, then Jefferson and Madison (signers of the Kentucky Resolution of 1798) might as well have been Federalists. Madison was clearly a nationalist (i.e. Federalist). Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase and trade embargoes prove that he too was a nationalist. But, I think that at the time of the signing even Hamilton would have said that a national (central) bank was a bridge too far, ostensibly based upon their construction of the Constitution. If they would have told the people of those recently-emancipated states that the newly-formed federal government was just as powerful as their former absolutist monarchies, how do you imagine that most of the citizens of those states would have taken that?
Consider, the drafters were initially commissioned—not to draft a Constitution so-called, but—Articles of Confederation. The powers of the
confederate government were always sold to the people as being weak, and their taxing powers nearly absent. Later actions of these men are not necessarily good indicators of their professed intentions at the point of their signing.
I think that the point that you make about the Bible and the Constitution is fair insofar as you mistook my point: they are not comparable. I was talking about the over-estimation of the interpretation of a work by favored priestly types (whether they be pastors or Supreme Court justices). If the states created the institution of the federal government as their agent, then they (principles) are the arbiters of the nature and scope of their agent's purpose, duties and authority. Not the other way around. We bought a watch dog, and now we are duty bound to coddle it, when this mangy, rabid beast should be put down.
The point that you make about Jefferson is about as useful as making the point that the infallible Word of God was (in God's own impeccable, foreordaining providence) in large part gathered by Erasmus of Rotterdam. He is thought to have been a Sodomite, known to have been a bastard, and never left the Catholic church in the time of Reformation. Moses murdered a man. King David did much more. Paul, killed (or aided in the killing of) many. I don't deny that Jefferson was an unbeliever (a Deist), and likely a philanderer, or that he was inconsistent in his political views (as I showed some of his tendency toward centralized powers above).
Let God be true and every man a liar. Jefferson was but a man, unseemly at points (even as you and I). Though in his death, he seems never to have repented of his unbelief. But who among the founders did better. I am not arguing scripturally for our form of government. I am arguing only for the consistent application of it to and among our own citizens.
Now, since you continue to post anonymously, I will delete your future points. But since the points you make seem valuable, I will leave what you have written thus far alone. If you would like to post more, please answer my aside post: https://plus.google.com/u/0/114532675570920907037/posts/3L8ZUbpmsD3
.) And I will keep that information to myself, and plan to leave you to post as you would like.