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.
Uh, if you're talking about the "Roots peroration" in your post 273, you'll note that the Court didn't buy his theory. The fact that someone happens to use an argmument in a case has zip effect on Constitutional law unless the Court agrees with its correctness.
They didn't, Rootes party lost, so Rootes theory is invalid, thus you can't quote it as "precedent" to support your position.
"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."
See above.
"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."
Not at all. If it is done in accordance with the procedures contained within the Constitution, by means of a Constitutional convention called by the legislatures of three-quarters of the states, it is completely legal. And what makes you think that a new Constituion would entail "amending away our inalienable rights"---for all you know, a new Constitution "might" protect them better.
"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."
The significant distinction between the 1860 case and a "Constitutional convention" case is that the Constitution contained no WRITTEN mechanism within itself for states to secede. It "does" contain the stated written mechanism for a calling a convention. ALL of the legal writings I have seen about the eventualities of such a case is that in such a Convention, EVERYTHING is on the table--up to and including dumping the current Constitution and starting from scratch.