“Try reading my posts. I've asked you several times why a Constitutional amendment was necessary to prohibit alcohol.
The theories you are putting forth here are not congruent with the fact that an amendment was necessary. You are arguing that there are no Constitutional rights unless they are explicitly put forth in the Constitution.
You have also argued that the gov't has the power to do anything that it is not Constitutionally prohibited from doing.
So, the question remains. Why couldn't Congress outlaw alcohol by statue? Were they mistaken? Didn't they realize there was no right to alcohol and no limit on Congressional power in this area?”
I’d have to read the debates at the time. In general, the bill or rights is a list of prohibitions on the powers of government and the rest of the Constitution is simply boilerplate as to how the government will be organized and operate. Congress has outlawed a broad variety of things over the years. Drugs come to mind. No amendment was required. A more telling question would be, what acts have been precluded to government as a result of the 9th or 10th. I contend about none.
It is the reach of the courts into the legislative field that is more dangerous. As to alcohol specifically, it probably took an amendment for political reasons, ie; those against the idea made such a process necessary. If they had not objected so powerfully, the history might have been different.
From what I have read of your posts, you seem to believe that you are protected against reaches by unstated rights and powers found in the 9th and 10th. This is entertaining but has little effect on any of us.
I have argued that congress has the “power” to do anything not expressly prohibited. I stand by that. Heck, they have the “power” to do stuff that IS expressly prohibited. They do it all the time. Again a better question would be, what gave congress the “right” to act in such a way. My answer would be a combination of their very own reaching and the courts acting outside the constitution.
So, going back to cannon and the second. If the second cannot be found to explicitly protect an individual in owning cannon, then Congress does have the “power” to make them go away and arguing otherwise using the second would be futile. You would be better arguing on simple property rights law, and I believe you would lose there as well.
You seem to confuse what you believe the Constitution should do and say with what it really does do and say.
And you're OK with this?
You are right that there is a difference between rightful exercise of power and the exercise of power. Most conservatives believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, with the hopes of restoring the gov't to its rightful place.
This is a different thing than arguing about how to game the system as it is presently operating. I fear you are doing the latter (lawyering) while we are doing the former (engaging in philosophical discussion).
You seem to confuse what you believe the Constitution should do and say with what it really does do and say.
It says what it says. The question is whether the gov't is abiding by what it says.
SD