The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism

THE NATIONAL PROHIBITION LAW HEARINGS, 1926, ( those interested in the WOD should check it out) [Free Republic]
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ae8489003ca.htm

Heres an interesting old thread on the subject.

The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment make it clear that the peoples rights to life, liberty, or property are not to be infringed, abridged or denied, -- by any level of government in the USA.

Marshall made much the same point in Marbury, back in 1803:

"-- The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest.
It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
That the people have an original right to establish, for their future govern-ment, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected.
The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated.
The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental.
And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent. --"

Thus we see the fundamental principles of personal liberty in our Constitution as permanent.

Any amendments that violated those principles would be null, void, and repugnant.

Any amendments that violated those principles would be null, void, and repugnant.

If you will read the portion of the Constitution below you will note that there is nothing about any portion of the Constitution, including other amendments, that cannot be amended except as noted until 1808. You will also note that there are no amendements which affect the quoted portion below. As a matter of record, I called to your attention in an earlier post that the Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment. You also note that the Fourteenth Amendment, of which you are so fond, substantially curtailed the Tenth Amendment. Beyond these examples, the Sixteenth Amendment essentially “gutted” the protections of the Fifth Amendment as far as tax issues are concerned. Your theory, while it sounds great, fails miserably in view of reality.

US Constitution, Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

It has been argued that the SCOTUS could 'strike down' an Amendment as unconstitutional. -- And that exact point was put before them in 1919, in a move to nullify the 18th.

"--- The Supreme Court issued its most sweeping decision concerning the Eighteenth Amendment in June 1920.

Seven cases, each raising fundamental questions concerning the constitutionality of the amendment, were consolidated by the Court and labeled the National Prohibition Cases.

A host of highly regarded attorneys, including Elihu Root, William D. Guthrie, and Levy Mayer, as well as Herbert A. Rice and Thomas F. McCran, attorneys general for Rhode Island and New Jersey respectively, represented the appellants.
The oral arguments lasted for five days, an unusually long time for even the most important cases.

The argument of Elihu Root attracted the most attention. The former Secretary of War, Secretary of State, and senator represented a New Jersey brewer.

Root asserted that the Eighteenth Amendment was simply unconstitutional.
Root from the outset opposed the form, spirit, purpose, and effect of the Eighteenth Amendment. He told friends that its denial of personal liberty, its potential for eroding respect for law, and its alteration of the balance between local and national government alarmed him."

Root gave a memorable peroration:

" --- If your Honors shall find a way to declare this so-called Amendment to the Federal Constitution valid, then the Government of the United States as it has been known to us and to our forefathers will have ceased to exist. Your Honors will have discovered a new legislative authority hitherto unknown to the Constitution and quite untrammelled by any of its limitations.

You will have declared that two thirds of a quorum of each House of the Congress, plus a majority of a quorum of each of the two Houses of the Legislatures of three fourths of the States, may enact any legislation they please without any reference to the limitations of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights itself.

In that case, Your Honors, John Marshall need never have sat upon that bench. --- "

Well, we know who won.

Yep, the people won.

Prohibition was wrong, legislators, enforcers & the courts were wrong.

Booze [or drugs] have never been the problem.
Disdain for our Constitutional liberties under the rule of law is the problem.

Need help?

There goes a study in all the "right" answers to all the wrong questions.

Strange player.

""If you cannot be be bothered to read, then it is your loss.""

Nope. It's yours. You make wild claims to me and then refuse to back them up.

Nope. It's yours. You make wild claims to me and then refuse to back them up.

I have not so refused. I merely refused to repeat myself. The information you "demanded" is available on this thread. You simply refuse to put forth the effort to look for it.

Your laziness is not my concern.

OK, you have had the last word. You're still wrong.