Y'know, you've got SERIOUS problems with logic, basic knowledge of history, and reading comprehension:
1) your "Marbury vs. Madison" argument fails because it is logically impossible for the Constitution to "be repugnant" to itself, which would be the case of any attempt to "judically review" a Constitutional amendment.
2) your "Eighteenth Amendment" argument fails because the case under discussion was the Volstead Act and NOT the Prohibition Amendment (thanks jwalsh07).
3) "I" certainly nowhere said I "want to eliminate the current Constitution". But the fact remains that the people, via their state legislatures, have the LEGAL power to exactly that.
4) it matters not a whit if you have "sworn an oath" to protect the Constitution. If the people, by means of a legally called Constitutional Convention, decide to toss it out and start over from scratch, your "oath" becomes moot, as they will have used the legal Constitutional power reserved to them by that same "old" Constitution. Any action in opposition on your part to impede that process would place you "in rebellion" against that very Constitution.
1) your "Marbury vs. Madison" argument fails because it is logically impossible for the Constitution to "be repugnant" to itself, which would be the case of any attempt to "judically review" a Constitutional amendment.
Weird logic. Amendments can be written & ratified that are 'repugnant', just as Root argued. You cannot counter his argument.
2) your "Eighteenth Amendment" argument fails because the case under discussion was the Volstead Act and NOT the Prohibition Amendment (thanks jwalsh07).
The case argued not only Volstead, but the constitutionality of the 18th. See Roots argument, which was made before the Court, and proves you wrong.
3) "I" certainly nowhere said I "want to eliminate the current Constitution". But the fact remains that the people, via their state legislatures, have the LEGAL power to exactly that.
That is not a "fact" it is the issue. We cannot amend away our inalienable rights. Eliminating the current Constitution would be an act repugnant to all of our constitutions principles, - an act of rebellion, of civil war.
4) it matters not a whit if you have "sworn an oath" to protect the Constitution.
It matters to me, and millions like me.
If the people, by means of a legally called Constitutional Convention, decide to toss it out and start over from scratch, your "oath" becomes moot, as they will have used the legal Constitutional power reserved to them by that same "old" Constitution. Any action in opposition on your part to impede that process would place you "in rebellion" against that very Constitution.
I'm not the one here saying people can rebel by eliminating the current Constitution. - You say that is "legal", - that same argument as was made in 1860. I'd wager we would have the same outcome as in 1865.