[jwalsh07]

Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER announced the conclusions of the Court.

Power to amend the Constitution was reserved by article 5, which reads:

'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.'

The text of the Eighteenth Amendment, proposed by Congress in 1917 and proclaimed as ratified in 1919, is as follows:

'Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
'Sec. 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'

We here are concerned with seven cases involving the validity of that amendment and of certain general features of the National Prohibition Law, known as the Volstead Act, which was adopted to enforce the amendment. The relief sought in each case is an injunction against the execution of that act.... The cases have been elaborately argued at the bar and in printed briefs; and the arguments have been attentively considered, with the result that we reach and announce the following conclusions on the questions involved:

1. The adoption by both houses of Congress, each by a two-thirds vote, of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution sufficiently shows that the proposal was deemed necessary by all who voted for it. An express declaration that they regarded it as necessary is not essential. None of the resolutions whereby prior amendments were proposed contained such a declaration.
2. The two-thirds vote in each house which is required in proposing an amendment is a vote of two-thirds of the members present-assuming the presence of a quorum-and not a vote of two-thirds of the entire membership, present and absent.
3. The referendum provisions of state Constitutions and statutes cannot be applied, consistently with the Constitution of the United States, in the ratification or rejection of amendments to it.
4. The prohibition of the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation and exportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, as embodied in the Eighteenth Amendment, is within the power to amend reserved by article 5 of the Constitution.
5. That amendment, by lawful proposal and ratification, has become a part of the Constitution, and must be respected and given effect the same as other provisions of that instrument.

In other words, amendments to the constitution made in accordance with Article 5 are not subject to review by courts. Legislative acts enforcing such amendments are to be interpreted by courts. All constitutional. You can read, can't you?

[musanon]

I don't give a rats ass what a rogue court did in 1918. Either you put up the language in the constitution granting the judiciary the power to rule on the "constitutionality" of a constitutional amendment or take your condescending bs somewhere else.

Article III, Section 2 gives the SCOTUS the power of judicial review of ALL laws in cases arising before them.

Torie replies:
That is non responsive. The issue is whether of not SCOTUS can strike down a Constitutional Amendment, on any grounds.

I responded showing that Article III gives the court the review power; -- and that they used it to consider 'striking down' the 18th is undisputable. Furthermore, no one in 1920 questioned that SCOTUS has that power.

It cannot, despite what Root in a brief said in 1918. SCOTUS ignored Root it would seem.

Yep, just as you ignore 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.

Walsh replies:
In other words, amendments to the constitution made in accordance with Article 5 are not subject to review by courts. Legislative acts enforcing such amendments are to be interpreted by courts. All constitutional.

Or in other words, the court decreed that the Constitution can be amended without any reference to the limitations of the document itself, including the Bill of Rights.

Why you two -want- the government to have such a prohibitory power over our individual liberties remains unanswered.