Also known as fine relative to course?
"i kinda see it, that the constitutions/bill of rights intent was based on liberty, the only man made thing that im aware, that is solely based on liberty, at least, the earliest example of translating liberty and writing them down so that people have a "legally" binding set of rights, comprised from our liberties."
Those are many words.
Here are fewer words:
"constitutions/bill of rights"
One symbol is here:
Instead of ONE Constitution there were 13 Constitutions.
Those who wanted to pay more for a greater return on investment went to a Constitutionally Limited Government, such as Massachusetts, to get more by paying more, as an investment in higher quality government, at a higher price.
Those who preferred paying less, or paying the minimum, while expecting very little in return, may vote with their feet to Vermont.
What could the Federal Employees do if Massachusetts claims ownership of the Voter who Votes with their feet, as if those Massachusetts Employees, those who are hired to run Government, claim that one of their slaves ran away, and ran to Vermont?
That actually happened in the events known as Shays's Rebellion under The Articles of Confederation.
Daniel Shays's voted with his feet on into Vermont.
So the question to you, with your astute observation that it was constitutions, and not constitution, that was paired up with Bills of Rights, which were based upon Liberty, so the question is, what was the Federal Government Employee's response to the claim by Massachusetts Government Employee's claim that their Slave, this Daniel Shays, ran away, and should be returned to their owners?
What did the Federal Government do to the claim that slaves ran away from one State, voting with their Liberated feet, on into a better State in the Free Market Shopping Center of Government that existed under The Articles of Confederation?
Source 1 (of many):
From the bookshelf right here on this Forum:
Do you have the accurate answer?