Replies

"Weird logic. Amendments can be written & ratified that are 'repugnant', just as Root argued. You cannot counter his argument."

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.

The case in question argued not only Volstead, but the constitutionality of the 18th. See Roots argument, which was made before the Court, and proves you wrong.
Amendments can be written & ratified that are 'repugnant', just as Root argued. You cannot counter his argument.

Uh, if you're talking about the "Roots peroration" in your post 273, you'll note that the Court didn't buy his theory.

You're defending a court decision that prohibited your right to possess & use alcohol. You don't buy Roots "theory"? The rational mind boggles.

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.

You are defending the Courts power to define "correctness"?

They didn't, Rootes party lost, so Rootes theory is invalid, thus you can't quote it as "precedent" to support your position.

Roots "theory" defends individual rights over the power of governments to prohibit. -- You claim that a majority can prohibit anything, & even eliminate the current Constitution.

That is not a "fact" it is the issue.
We cannot amend away our inalienable rights. Eliminating the current Constitutions protections of them would be an act repugnant to all of our constitutions principles, - an act of rebellion, of civil war.

Our right to bear arms can be amended away 'completely legally'? Bet me. -- Such an act would start a civil war.

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.

Dream on. You arguing for a power to prohibit, not to protect.

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.

As I said, if our basic rights were infringed upon in such a Convention, they would be deemed unconstitutional by all rational men. We would end up in a civil war over civil rights.