[Poohbah]

Actually, the problem is more fundamental: from the earliest days of the Republic, the courts have held that issues of whether a consitutional amendment was properly ratified or not are not legal questions within the purview of the judiciary; instead, they are political matters to be resolved by the Congress and the legislatures of the several states.

And I, for one, say "Thank God Almighty that the courts aren't inserting themselves into those issues, at least."

Consider this: by the statements of those who argue as you do re: the 16th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment was never ratified, either. You want to hand Hillary Clinton and Sarah Brady the tool needed for outlawing private weapons ownership?

[hoosierham]

It pretty much boils down to if people fail to challenge a new law or interpretation of an old one over time that law becomes accepted by general consensus .

Let me also say that I think Matthews' actions were the ultimate in stupidity ; he evidently never heard of choosing one's battles. I have strong reservations about the constitutionality of several areas of American gov't agencies regulation of our freedoms but fools who die in quixotic battles with the power of the State help only the oppressors.

Only when and if you can convince those who write and enforce the laws that a policy is beneficial to them will that policy be widespread.