>> The Bill of Rights was added because some wanted to strengthen the legal basis.
I understand that there was an interesting machloket between American avot: if you have a general statement that anything not in constitution is reserved to states and people, this is enough to protect personal liberties. Furthermore, if you list specific rights, then you are implicitly allowing for additional restrictions. The “paranoid” insisted that we should protect them anyway. I think modern experience of ever-expanding state powers justifies the paranoid (“if you are paranoid, does not mean that there is no one after you”).
>> Amendments 1-10 were added soon after adoption of the Constitution
There would not be enough states to sign constitution without bill of rights, so they should be considered part of the main body.
Ctlawyer >> There is NO law that separates religion and state in the USA.
to be precise, First Amt originally meant Congress. Your state had a state religion and it was perfectly constitutional. Paying state taxes to a specific church was ok, even in states where other religions were allowed.
n0> You have a reasonable way of making yourself unreasonable.
if you agree with my method but disagree with my conclusions, you should revisit your conclusions.