I have this rather giddy sense that the double-edged sword of social media and global media is that people are more inclined to actually understand the issues in terms of the American civics in play.

I could be wrong, and making signs and demonstrating in public is all anyone wants or needs to do. But I actually doubt it and I suspect there will be a few inquisitive traitors in their midst, eventually.

My basic thesis here—irrespective of what you think about abortion or alcohol—is that The 18th Amendment, commonly known as Prohibition, no matter how crazy, went by the book.

[This is a follow-up or addendum to my last post, Abortion, SCOTUS, Roe vs. Wade, and My Take.]

Let’s take a quick look.

Thirty-three amendments to the United States Constitution have been proposed by the United States Congress and sent to the states for ratification since the Constitution was put into operation on March 4, 1789. Twenty-seven of these, having been ratified by the requisite number of states, are part of the Constitution. The first ten amendments were adopted and ratified simultaneously and are known collectively as the Bill of Rights. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments are collectively known as the Reconstruction Amendments. Six amendments adopted by Congress and sent to the states have not been ratified by the required number of states. Four of these amendments are still pending, one is closed and has failed by its own terms, and one is closed and has failed by the terms of the resolution proposing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

To make a quick summary of it, amendments are proposed by a 2/3 vote in both Senate and House (POTUS is out of the loop on this), or a constitutional convention, which has never been used. Once proposed, 3/4ths of the state legislatures must ratify it.

Or, the states can also do it by 3/4ths (38 states) holding ratifying conventions by whatever rules that may differ by their own legislative procedures. The niggle is that this procedure was only used once, and that was to adopt the 21st Amendment in 1933—its sole purpose being to repeal the 18th Amendment. It’s the only amendment to ever be repealed. It was all done totally by the book.

It was done according to the rules of our Republic. Silly as Prohibition was, the recognition of the crazy adverse consequences eventually had its day and it went away. …Juxtapose that with the inability to recognize the same adverse consequences in terms of the WAR ON DRUGS!!!

So there’s your brief and in giving it, it necessarily sheds light on what an awful insurgency the Supreme Court delivered in 1973, Roe, led by leftist Henry Blackmun, appointed by Richard Nixon. What happened?

Progressives, I guess. Only 2 justices dissented, White and Rehnquist—and I’ve always thought Rehnquist was a pretty solid dude.

Let’s sidetrack and take a look at a tangential proposed amendment, the Equal Rights Amendment…the ERA!!!

…If you were alive and kicking in the 1970s, maybe you remember it. Quite the furor. It was drafted way back in 1923 but never got any steam until the late 1960s and in 1971, the House and Senate introduced it to the state legislatures for ratification. It was a super-stupid amendment in the first place, since MAH EQUAL RIGHTS!!! were already explicit in the Constitution itself (as well as The Declaration of Independence). Its purpose was to grant superior rights to women, at the expense of men—whatever a ‘woman’ is, now.

The cucks and whores in all of congress supported it, as did cucks Nixon, Ford, and Carter. In 1978, they extended its deadline for passage from 1979 to 1982—as they had 35 of the 38 states needed to ratify it, so it seemed inevitable with enough time. But, then, 5 states rescinded their ratifications. Attempts at resurrection even recently have all been duds.

…Perhaps there are some issues where you just can’t fool enough people. The US Constitution is the quintessential document that seeks to eliminate segregation and discrimination—very imperfectly as it ought to have outlawed slavery—and in my gimlet eye, everything since strikes me as an effort to claw segregation and discrimination back, so that favored political allies get to live at the expense of the unfavored.

Had abortion “rights” been so important, Congress has had ample opportunity to simply make that a preemptive federal law. They know this, but they also know that they can’t get such a law passed, even to this day. They can’t get enough Democrat votes because too many representatives and senators come from states where abortion is frowned upon and they judge they’ll lose their ass in reelection.

But, it’s OK if the Supreme Court simply creates a de-facto constitutional amendment, bypassing that tough process. Everyone has plausible deniability.

Consider killing and murder, adjudicated by 50 states separately and individually with myriad statutes covering both. It’s rather fucking elegant. There are bunches of conditions. You have multiple degrees of murder (1st, 2nd, 3rd), justifiable homicide, self-defense, manslaughter, and the list goes on. Killing or murdering someone in one state can get you radically different penalties from doing exactly the same thing in another. And, states do modify their laws in these matters. Could that be because another state’s experiment is getting better results?

In that last post, paid-subscriber Alan gave a nice addition in his comment.

Excellent summary and take on this draft opinion. Especially where you point out what almost no one knows: that there are only three federal crimes permitted by the Constitution. At the time the Constitution was drafted, it was inconceivable that the proposed Federal government would be in the crime-fighting business. Crimes and criminal codes were viewed as exclusively the province of the States. The entire rest of the Federal crimes listed in the Federal criminal code have been justified by the Supreme Court using the much-abused “interstate commerce” clause. Look up any federal criminal statute and you will see that the magic words “interstate commerce” are included. For example, all federal gun and drug crimes are based on the use of said objects in or affecting interstate commerce. And then, of course, the Court has given the most expansive definition of interstate commerce in order to hold the such criminal statutes are constitutional. The most famous example is Wickard v Filburn, that upheld the federal crime of growing more wheat on one’s own property that exceeded Federal quotas. The criminal statute in question included the standard “affecting interstate commerce” requirement. And even though the farmer in question planted, harvested, and consumed the wheat on his own property in a single state, the Court held that the fact that the farmer did NOT sell his wheat across State lines, affected interstate commerce in that doing so meant there was less wheat available to be sold in interstate commerce.

Indeed. It’s a whole other can of worms and in a sense, conveys a critical flaw in the makeup of the original civic organization. If you have states that have the ultimate power, within the reigns of the Constitution, then why have a federal house, senate—and often POTUS—that seemingly works so hard against states doing their own thing?

It has been a gradual slide over a couple of hundred years to, not uphold, but to work against and around the tight limits of the Constitution while gradually eroding the sovereignty of the states. It seems to be inadvertently baked into the cake…a power struggle. It seems to me that congress is not content unless it’s making law after law and to what end and purpose?

…Well, Covid was a valuable experience in demonstrating the power of the states to differ from other states, awakening America to the fact they have real, material choices. Hell, even Elon moved his operations from California to Texas motivated by differing Covid restrictions—a multi-billions impact on both, negative and positive.

And now this, Roe…50 years in coming home to roost.

Will this usher in a resurgence of interest in the US Federal Government overreach into all matters of American life?

Count me as hopeful. There are thousands of federal laws to be challenged.

Getting back to basics is cathartic.