Government's roll. Nice one, blank. If only it was intentional.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, June 11th, 2010 9:44pm PDT - promote requested by enoch.

Someone needs to slap that video editor.

I'm mostly in agreement with this dude, but he errs when says that the 18th Amendment was an illegal constitutional amendment. The 18th Amendment was part of the Constitution, therefore that by itself made it legal, and the Volstead Act which it enforced was also legal, at the time. The 21st Amendment undid the 18th Amendment, thereby invalidating the Volstead Act as well, but until that time both the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act were perfectly legal. Not that I endorse the 18th Amendment or the Volstead Act, but that's just the way it was.

He also equated the "pursuit of happiness" with property, but that's not what Jefferson intended when he wrote the "pursuit of happiness." He replaced "property" with "pursuit of happiness," deliberately breaking away from John Locke's "life, liberty, and property." Now I'll grant you that the real meaning of "pursuit of happiness" is somewhat debatable, but it is an error to simply state that "property" is the same as the "pursuit of happiness."

I mention these two things because it sort of undermines his arguments when he states two things that are erroneous. Otherwise I'll go along with what he says. The drug war is complete bullshit, another exercise to exert control over the people, antithetical to liberty.

Can't laws later be help illegal by court review? Like separate but equal, it was a law that was later found to be illegal. Can't amendments use the same kind of phrasing? Can't an amendment be illegal/breach of other parts of the constitution? Perhaps he just should of used a different word. I think both of us consider this a minor point, just wanted to get some clarification on your objection.

^The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the Amendments are part of that. Separate but equal was a Supreme Court ruling (Plessy Vs. Ferguson) that upheld segregation, but it was never written into the Constitution. One amendment can counter another, like the 21st repealing the 18th, but the 18th was never illegal. It couldn't be, simply by virtue of it being part of the Constitution, the supreme law of the United States. That's why many gay marriage opponents want a marriage amendment that defines it as the legal union of one man and one woman, because that way gay marriage would be illegal everywhere in the country. And the only way to do undo such a marriage amendment would be to introduce another amendment that would repeal it.

I'm guessing he just chose his words poorly regarding the 18th Amendment, or that he misunderstands how the Constitution works. Nonetheless, that's how your opponents pick you apart, by pointing out flaws in your argument.