The Constitution That Never Was, by Ralph Boryszewski

This book is making the Bill of Rights out to be something special, where I have always thought (due to research) such was VERY LIMITED in its scope. For example, in line with the general "International Commerce" nature of the Constitution, the 7th Amendment was to allow a common law jury to rule of cases that were of Maritime. Most people in the movement have made it out to protect one's right to a common law jury (see Patriot Myths paper).

Not reading the book, be careful. People who ignore the 14th Amendment are misleading people. Again, in reference thereof, the Bill of Rights (so-called) was extremely limited in its scope. Most people are looking at the "First Ten Articles in Amendment" through 14th Amendment Rose Colored Glasses....

"Ralph points out that the Constitution is an agreement among the states; the Bill of Rights is a statement OF THE PEOPLE, setting ground rules for behavior of the federal government AND the states which formed it. It is his assertion that the Bill of Rights is separate and complete within itself, NOT A PART OF the Constitution at all. He asserts that the Constitution is inferior to the Bill of Rights, and if you examine closely our present situation, it would certainly appear from their actions that the oaths taken by our elected officials and judges and *law enforcement officers* to uphold and defend the Constitution certainly excludes the provisions and limitations upon government set forth in the Bill of Rights."

http://www.frontiernet.net/~ralphb1/review.htm

The book DOES address the 14th Amendment, I have found out. So is probably worth a look at. As always, as a general rule, people have to be careful with with case law is stating due to the duality of the 14th Amendment system.