"Our unalienable rights cannot be 'repealed' away. Your pretense that they can is a sheer denial, as securing the "Blessings of Liberty" was one of the founding principles of our Constitution."
Dred Scott would have been happy to hear that. The Supreme Court ruled against him.
I keep asking you to prove your contention by citing what part of the Constitution forbids repeal of any one or all of the first ten amendments. So far, you haven't cited anything.
And one amendment, the 18th, has already been repealed by a further amendment, the 21st, so I have both Article V, and precedent backing my argument. What do you have? Come out with it.
Dred Scott would have been happy to hear that. The Supreme Court ruled against him.
So what? The Court makes mistakes, as is evident by their saying that Prohibition was Constitutional. Fortunately, the people overruled them with the 21st.
I keep asking you to prove your contention by citing what part of the Constitution forbids repeal of any one or all of the first ten amendments. So far, you haven't cited anything.
Asking for unobtainable 'cites' is not debate, it's a game. --- Your game is to reject [no cites] or ignore every reasoned argument, arguing instead for prohibitive powers over life, liberty, & property.
And one amendment, the 18th, has already been repealed by a further amendment, the 21st, so I have both Article V, and precedent backing my argument. What do you have? Come out with it.
Your argument 'backs' prohibitory power. Mine is backed by a Constitutional principle for the "Blessings of Liberty". Our whole Constitution is based on a 'presumption of liberty' for individuals.
Your theory that our unalienable rights can be 'repealed' away is a sheer denial of that basic Constitutional presumption.