But the parts you bolded merely re-state Article V of the original Constitution.
" --- You will have declared that --- Congress, plus a majority of the --- States, may enact any legislation they please without any reference to the limitations of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights itself. -- "
This 'bolded' part of Roots argument makes perfect sense as an argument of principle.
Quorums are not the point.
Root 'boldly' argued that alcohol prohibition is an unconstitutional infringement on our basic individual rights. -- Much as an amendment prohibiting guns would be unconstitutional. He was arguing principle.
Congress and the States are specifically delegated the power to change the Constitution itself.
With the proviso that amendments be " -- Valid to all Intents and Purposes, -- "
There is nothing in that document limiting the changes to certain "principles," that I know of anyway. Can you point to such a limitation?
The Constitutions basic principles [that individual human rights are to be protected] are scattered throughout the document. There is nothing in the Constitution giving government or majorities the power to 'amend away' our individual rights to life, liberty, or property. Can you point to such a power?
I agree that the 18th was a bad idea, as would be repeal of the 2nd (which would be a casus belli for me), but the Constitution provides for it.
Why do you want government to have a power you agree is a bad idea?
"Unconstitutional" means prohibited by a constitution; it is not synonymous with "unprincipled."
Wordplay. - An amendment, repealing the 2nd for instance, - would be repugnant to the document and could be termed both unprincipled & unconstitutional.
.
" --- You will have declared that --- Congress, plus a majority of the --- States, may enact any legislation they please without any reference to the limitations of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights itself. -- "
Except you are dropping the part that Root acknowledged: a super majority, not a simple majority is required for these changes. Article V grants exactly the power Root was complaining of.
"Quorums are not the point.
Root 'boldly' argued that alcohol prohibition is an unconstitutional infringement on our basic individual rights. -- Much as an amendment prohibiting guns would be unconstitutional. He was arguing principle."
Alcohol prohibition WITHOUT that amendment would have been unconstitutional. The amendment was a "constitutional" infringement on our rights, as was this part of Article IV: "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due." Since the Persons in question were being deprived of their liberty (an "unalienable right," as the unanimous Declaration puts it) from birth, without any crime on their part, I'd say that was rather worse the the Eighteenth Amend. And yet, it was part of the original Constitution, and hence constitutional at that time. An act of Congress prohibiting gun ownership would be unconstitutional because such a statute is prohibited by the 2nd and 10th Amendments. An amendment AMENDS the Constitution, and if ratified could remove that prohibition.
"With the proviso that amendments be " -- Valid to all Intents and Purposes, -- "
Proviso??? "...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;" That is saying exactly what I am saying; that a ratified amendment SHALL BE VALID. The only way a court could strike it down would be to challenge the ratification.
"There is nothing in the Constitution giving government or majorities the power to 'amend away' our individual rights to life, liberty, or property. Can you point to such a power?"
Article V. Does it really need to be quoted again? Here is the only limitation on the amending power therein granted: "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 only part of that which touches on individual rights is the 4th clause of the 98th Section of the 1st Article: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." There is nothing there that prohibits the 18th Amendment or prevents the repeal of the 2nd.
"Why do you want government to have a power you agree is a bad idea?"
What powers I want the government to have and what powers it does have are two different things. Confusing personal (even strongly held) preferences with the Constitution is what bad judges do. I don't wish to emulate them.
"Wordplay. - An amendment, repealing the 2nd for instance, - would be repugnant to the document and could be termed both unprincipled & unconstitutional."
In a conflict between an original law, and an amendment to the law, the amendment rules. That is the purpose of an amendment. Repealing the 2nd by amendment would be contrary to my principles, certainly, but without doing violence to the language, could not be said to be unconstitutional.