Simple question about the prohibition amendment to the Constitution

If it took a Constitutional Amendment to make alcohol illegal, would it not also take a Constitutional Amendment to make any other substance illegal?

I would answer this question with a hell yes.

Just for those out there wondering what I mean by this.

If a substance A takes a Constitutional Amendment to make it illegal, the very same thing must be said for substance B, C, D or Z. Now, this is the very basic idea behind the 9th and 10th Amendment.

9-The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10-The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, if the government needed to pass a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit something, they need to pass a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit anything. This is just basic FACT. Because the government uses statutes to enforce their prohibitions now, proves the government is not following the Constitution on THIS or many other things.

I would LOVE anyone to break this very simple, forthright and absolutely BRILLIANT legal strategy. I will be waiting til the end of time.

saltheart foamfollower, legal eagle

So simple, it is brilliant.

[edit on 6-9-2010 by saltheart foamfollower]

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
If it took a Constitutional Amendment to make alcohol illegal, would it not also take a Constitutional Amendment to make any other substance illegal?

No

Because the Supreme Court is made up of terrorist insurgents that automatically hand all power to criminal politicians no matter what.

Hence, congress does not need an amendment to do anything anymore.

The Supreme Court only has one rubber stamp, and it has the word "Approved" on the bottom of it.

reply to post by mnemeth1




Thanks mnemeth, you racist you.

Funny how folk cannot understand simple sarcasm and they think they are going to understand political discourse and basic freedoms.

I think this could be used to abolish all the unlawful statutes in regards to any prohibition instituted by the unlawful government. We could just bypass the courts and just layout the basic law for the jury, so that THEY can acquit on unlawful legislation or color of law legislation.

I just thought of this when coming across the amendments on the prohibition component when looking at the Constitution again and just putting it together on the war on drugs, or more aptly named, the WAR ON RIGHTS.

If none of those goons are paying any attention to the Constitution, why would a Constitutional argument hold any water? My guess is it would get ignored since it's based upon what's being ignored.

I'm not cynical, no way.

You are probably not giving state's rights enough credit.

Giving the right of the states to decide is usually a failsafe tactic to where some can be happy but not some happy/some mad. Letting the states decide allows for people to pick where they want to live according to the laws in that state.

If I wanted to be able to use marijuana for whatever reason, I could move to the other side of the country to live in California to get my "green" card.

State's rights are a powerful thing. They are just one of the checks and balances built into our government but most of the time it is underplayed or not noticed at all.

That is an excellent point. Hmmmm....I wonder if this would fly as a defense in a jury trial? I'm not about to try, but would love to know.

reply to post by EnlightenUp

If none of those goons are paying any attention to the Constitution, why would a Constitutional argument hold any water? My guess is it would get ignored since it's based upon what's being ignored.

I'm not cynical, no way.

You are NOT being cynical, you are being realistic.

But, just something to keep in mind when thinking of arguments for and against Constitutional governance.

Tomorrow, they may try and ban sugar. If we let them get away with it on one thing, they will use the same technique for others.

reply to post by TheBloodRed


What you are stating about state's rights is another argument. Yes, the states should be able to decide for themselves.

What I am talking about is the federal government stepping over their mandated or enumerated powers.

reply to post by SmokeandShadow


I wish I knew some criminal lawyers. I would give them a call and if someone is being charged with a federal crime on banned substances, to give this argument a try.

IMO this argument is undebatable.

There is no argument against it.

Just something that clicked in my head today.

As for state charges, one could look to see if the state has had a state Constitutional prohibition in the past on alcohol. If it did and it was repealed, the argument could be made in a state charge.

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
That is an excellent point. Hmmmm....I wonder if this would fly as a defense in a jury trial? I'm not about to try, but would love to know.

I don't think so because it would necessarily inform (or remind) the jury of their rights, duties and power to nullify, which would put you in contempt.

reply to post by EnlightenUp


Well, I am thinking of using like a motion to dismiss.

Since this puts the very government to prove the argument does not hold water.

They would have to argue against something so simple and so basically undebateable, that it would be obvious.

Now, what you state about contempt, has happened in court rooms.

Funny how the government can throw someone in jail, with no trial indefinitely, for informing the jury of case law and Constitutional rights.

Kind of begs the question, what exact law is the court systems being run under, in the United States of Tyranny?

I mean, if one is to quote a Supreme Court justice and get thrown in jail indefinitely without trial, there has to be something VERY wrong with our court systems.

But I digress. Just trying to wake up the few not aware of the tyranny we live under.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


I agree, however most states have laws forbidding those "implied" substances. Take my state, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, with marijuana, if you're caught with under 8 ounces (half a pound) that hasn't been divided into several separate containers (distribution / trafficking) then it's a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $500 fine and up to 1 year in jail (which was recently rescinded for 1st time offenders). They don't arrest you, unless your under 18, you get a citation to appear in court. Regardless of my state's laws and depending upon how much of a man our sheriff is the DEA, and other federally unconstitutional law enforcement agencies could potentially trample over the 9th and 10th amendments and arrest people for federal laws regarding narcotic substances. I do see a need for the FBI there are a lot of interstate / federal crimes where jurisdiction becomes FUBAR. What I don't agree with are agencies such as the DEA, ATF, IRS (you should see how armed these folks are) or our 3 national security police forces (CIA, NSA, Homeland Security... doesn't that seem like overkill?). Doesn't it all seem like overkill? Shouldn't the FBI be all the police force this country needs federally? Shouldn't 1 agency run national defense? If this country wants to cut the government spending and all the waste why not cut all these unnecessary agencies? But i digress. Back on point, Sheriffs and Governors need to step up and if need be call out the National Guard when these agencies overstep their boundaries. If I were Sheriff, I know I certainly wouldn't allow the IRS, DEA, ATF, etc. to come into my town and unconstitutionally harass / arrest citizens when they didn't break any state laws or harm anyone else. Our local governments need to step up to these domestic terrorist in the guise acronyms.

reply to post by iamoverrated


Very good points you make.

There are actual sheriffs saying exactly what you have said. Montana comes to mind on the right to bear arms issue. The sheriff actually stated that he would arrest anyone attempting to enforce federal gun laws in his county. Also that if a federal officer entered his county without his knowledge or permission.

Some are waking, some not so much.

IMO this argument is undebatable.

There is no argument against it.

Mod Edit. Removed unnecessary comments about another member

However your statements bring back memories of research into the 14th amendment. Criminal abuses of power even go back as far as Lincoln. So, the true America is actually the United Estates of Amerika.(Copyright 1865)

One of the biggest abuses of power in US history: www.barefootsworld.net...

reply to post by AzoriaCorp


Mod Edit - Removed attack on another site member

Funny, I have actually read through that link you provided before. Funny thing about the amendments added after the civil war, when you have soldiers standing over your representatives saying, SIGN THIS, kinda hard to say no.

a Brooklyn assemblyman, Felix Ortiz, has proposed a bill that would make it illegal for restaurants to use salt in the preparation of food. Period.

cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com...


FDA Joins Salt-Ban Bandwagon

gothamist.com...


Why the NY Salt Ban Proposal Is a Good Idea


www.theatlantic.com...


Chefs Call Proposed New York Salt Ban 'Absurd'


www.myfoxny.com...








i thought it was relevant

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye


Very relevant. But, as I said earlier, a city or state ban is different than a federal ban. The federal government, with the Alcohol Prohibition amendment set precedent requiring an amendment to prohibit something.

Now, the way I look at states and cities doing the banning of a material or substance, to be the same kind of thing though. Just not applying to my postulate on the Constitution.

That being said, the government is not supposed to save us from ourselves, they are supposed to make sure no one harms us externally from ourselves and no one takes our rights. That is pretty much it. Of course, the government thinks of us as their slaves now. Cannot let us harm their property right? Kinda like the military's attitude about a soldier getting a sunburn or twisting their ankle on a night out on the town. They can actually be charged with hurting government property.

Always comes back to what is good for the government or the collective, not the individual. Thanks for the addition.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye

 

Very relevant. But, as I said earlier, a city or state ban is different than a federal ban. The federal government, with the Alcohol Prohibition amendment set precedent requiring an amendment to prohibit something.
.

i do agree, but also notice

"
FDA Joins Salt-Ban Bandwagon

gothamist.com...
"


like george washington said, "the government is ONLY control."

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

Mod Edit - Removed attack on another member of the site

Funny, I have actually read through that link you provided before. Funny thing about the amendments added after the civil war, when you have soldiers standing over your representatives saying, SIGN THIS, kinda hard to say no.

Mod Edit - Removed attack on another member of the site

1. The Joint Resolution proposing said amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress per Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article I, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution.

3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the States then in the Union, and it was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States in the Union as required by Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

Actually many states DID say no. But somehow its still law.

a Brooklyn assemblyman, Felix Ortiz, has proposed a bill that would make it illegal for restaurants to use salt in the preparation of food. Period.

Thats quite dangerous as good salt (such as sea salt) contains iodine. A necessary nutrient to avoid goiter. Iodine also plays a large role in overall health.

They don't need amendments to ban anything. They only need a giant army of brain dead cops to enforce their will.

The constitution would have been a great tool. It needs to be thrown out or followed by all it power. The american people(good luck to you and good blesses) are simply clinging to an empty bag.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Heads up

The posting of personal attacks against other members of ATS is against the T&C.

Any more of it will result in post deletions and post bans if necessary.