[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Not only is that patently false, but totally ignorant of the FACT that humans are fallible, as are politicians. Are you saying that any amendment passed, regardless of its contents, is Constitutional? (say for instance, a majority of special intrest groups succeed in garnering support from congress and the senate, as well as the president to pass a bill that would allow cannibalism of certain races, sexes or creeds)

Precisely.

These are the requirements for an Amendment:

- Passed by a yes/no vote by 2/3 of both houses of Congress.
- Passed by a yes/no vote by a simple majority of 3/4 of State legislatures.

There is nothing about how much debate needs to take place, what public sentiment has to be, etc. It is a bad idea to pass an Amendment without these things, but it passes the requirements of the Constitution laid out in Article V.

For someone that claims to be all about originalist doctrine of Constitutional readings, you draw a lot of assumptions about the amendment process that simply are not there.

We are talking about what is Constitutional, not what is right, what are inalienable rights, etc. Constitutional is one very specific thing, and that is contained in the Constitution.

That is patently absurd, and beyond reason Tivo, and it is that exact mentality that is forcing more and more people to lose total respect for our government and its lack of Constitutional checks and balances. The language of the Constitution was abused by the concept of prohibition, and its passage was grievously unconstitutional, regardless of what scumbags were seated to vote it in, out or otherwise.

You say the passage was grievously unconstitutional. Show me how the passage of the 18th Amendment violated the amendment process found in Article V. What step contained in Article V was not taken?

What you mean is it was grievously unfair, illogical, bad, violating the rights of people, etc. All of which I agree with. But to be unconstitutional in the way it was passed, it would have to violate Article V's provisions for Amendments, which it did not.

Consult ratification and the peace the existed after its passage. The people have the right to repeal law in individual cases via jury nullification, and the right to repeal law via the supreme court, if that court lives up to its objective bias as INSTRUCTED via the Constitution. If not, the people have the right to revolt, and emplace a new government.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution as written. Since the 18th Amendment was part of the Constitution during that time, the Supreme Court could not overturn acts like Volkstead.

It wasn't, I repeat, WAS NOT a proper addition to the Constitution. Did you read ANY of the links I posted? The passage of time has shown the egregious lack of oversight and public intrest the Congress took in that matter, and it IS relevant to the context of the event.

"Oversight" and "public interest" are not found in Article V. It had the votes needed to carry. That is all that matters. Read Article V and tell me where oversight or public interest are needed to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

Again, for someone so concerned with the actual words in the document, you throw them out pretty quickly when you don't agree with what gets accomplished.

Since when is pandering to a small group of political activists, more important than addressing the will of the people, and acknowledging the checks on power embodied in the Constitution? Can you show me where it says that in the document Tivo?

Where it says what? The passage of the 18th Amendment was in accordance with Article V.

Again, I disagree. Simply being part of something means nothing if it contradicts other parts of the document, that are guarantees.

Well, you are wrong.

The Constitution "guaranteed" that Senators were to be chosen by the State Legislatures. Is the Amendment that changed that unconstitutional?

The Constitution "guaranteed" that blacks could be slaves and would be counted as 3/5 of a person in the census. Is the 13th Amendment unconstitutional?

Its addition was "illogical", and the people rectified it when their elected representatives FAILED to do so.

The 18th Amendment was ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures. In fact, only Connecticut and Rhode Island, out of all the states, rejected the Amendment.

an analogy: If a Math book is printed, and there is a misprint in an answer, who is wrong, the answer which is misprinted, or the student who did the work correctly and arrived at a different answer. I think the answer should be GLARINGLY OBVIOUS to someone with a SHRED of common sense, regardless of what law, what politicians, what ANYONE says!

Your analogy is not applicable. The 18th Amendment was duly ratified by the procedure found in the Constitution. It was not a typo. Philosophically, was it a "mistake"? Most likely, but LEGALLY, it was part of the Constitution and therefore Constitutional.

The Constitution can be amended, but it MAY NOT be amended to abridge the rights of citizens, which prohibition SURELY did.

LOL you are out of your mind. The very NOTION of a Constitution abridges the rights of people by creating a government that is empowered to enact laws for the good of the people, laws which may restrict the rights of citizens - the right to swing my fists, etc. That is called the "social contract"

ALL of the "Reserved Powers" - taxation, commerce clause, international treaties, etc, restrict the rights of citizens to do those things because they become purview of the federal government.

Furthermore, show me. QUOTE ME, not from your own warped notion of the Constitution, QUOTE ME where the Constitution says it may not be amended to restrict the rights of citizens. I want Article, Section, Clause, and a quote. Otherwise, bullshit.

What part of inalienable or unalienable is not understood by the law student and professors?

None.

We are discussing CONSTITUTIONAL, which is different from inalienable. The Constitution does not deal strictly in inalienable rights - is the electoral college an inalienable right?

So which is it?!? In agreement with =Constitutional, or PART OF = Constitutional?!?

Both. Something that is in agreement with the Constitution is Constitutional - a federal law coining money or regulating interstate commerce, for example.
Something that is contained in the Constitution is obviously Constitutional, like any of the Amendments, habeus corpus, etc.

The Black's Law Dictionary definition is simple:

Quote by: Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition (2004) constitutional, adj. Proper and valid under a constitution

Seems you have given two definitions in your own posts, perhaps you're confused?

Reading the thread, I think it is obvious to any sane reader who is confused, and it isn't me.

Regardless, I know my rights, and no law, no court, no agent of any government or military will remove them without just cause, without meeting resistance equal to that in which they exercise against me. THAT is my right.

And what does that have to do with whether something is Constitutional?

The Lawyers deserve to be held accountable equally to the politicians when the system breaks, the people revolt, and "restructuring" takes place.

Huh? Lawyers? What do they have to do with it? They only control about 2 million votes assuming every single one of them votes. There are well over 200 million people who could vote in this country. If all of them intelligently exercised their rights, what could a 1% bloc of them accomplish?

Quote by: Contumacious Quote by: tivodan1116 Violating the rights of individuals or not is not a measure of Constitutionality. HUH? We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; :rolleyes:

Ok, you are a liar. You said in your intro post you have a degree in law from University of Miami. This post proves you do not.

That quote is from the Declaration of Independence!!! Our laws stem from the Constitution.

Wow. Just wow. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: