The symbolism is not lost on me

[AZRedhawk44]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/brennan-takes-oath-constitution-without-bill-rights-205110620.html

Brennan deliberately asks for an original draft of the COTUS to be used to be sworn in upon.

The copy produced from the national archives has notes from George Washington on it.

The copy LACKS the Bill of Rights as amendments.

It is a DRAFT.  Not a legitimized, ratified edition.  It lacks the precise text of the ratified edition, with the BoR.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

With this bunch in charge, this is not a surprise.

[kgbsquirrel]

Wouldn't matter if it was one of the finished copies, the symbolism would be the same. The iron-gall ink used to write the documents has faded to all but nothing despite attempts at preservation.

[vaskidmark]

I don't usually look in poly-tics due to the amount of crazy, but was looking for something partticular when I ran by this.

People, the Constitution was ratified without the Bill of Rights because those were ADMENDMENTS to the thing.  The country went several years without a Bill of Rights - first folks wanted to see how this new notion of governing would work out, and then they debated about just what "fixes" it needed to have an even more perfect Union.

Since there is no legal requirement that federal office holders swear "on" anything, what's the big fuss what they rest their hand on while committing perjury?  (Yes, I understand the symbolism and all.  It's just that for all the swearings-in on The Bible (whichever version and previously belonging to whomever) I cannot recall any $diety striking anybody with a bolt of lightening, a case of boils, or being eaten alive by a swarm of locusts for putting their hand on The Bible during the ceremony.

If you look at the actuial oath of office, you will see that there are no words "so help me $diety" at the end.  A case might be floated that by saying those words the oath taken was improper, but who's going to really care?

stay safe.

[birdman]

I don't usually look in poly-tics due to the amount of crazy, but was looking for something partticular when I ran by this.

People, the Constitution was ratified without the Bill of Rights because those were ADMENDMENTS to the thing.  The country went several years without a Bill of Rights - first folks wanted to see how this new notion of governing would work out, and then they debated about just what "fixes" it needed to have an even more perfect Union.

Since there is no legal requirement that federal office holders swear "on" anything, what's the big fuss what they rest their hand on while committing perjury?  (Yes, I understand the symbolism and all.  It's just that for all the swearings-in on The Bible (whichever version and previously belonging to whomever) I cannot recall any $diety striking anybody with a bolt of lightening, a case of boils, or being eaten alive by a swarm of locusts for putting their hand on The Bible during the ceremony.

If you look at the actuial oath of office, you will see that there are no words "so help me $diety" at the end.  A case might be floated that by saying those words the oath taken was improper, but who's going to really care?

stay safe.

No.  The BoR was created as some states wouldn't ratify the main document WITHOUT the inclusion of those amendments as soon as possible, and they were proposed in the FIRST congress.

There was never a "lets see how this goes...oops, we need a bill of rights" phase, having it be amendments rather than in the main document was a compromise.