Hacker News Reader

Comment by AlwaysBCoding | Hacker News Reader

Also, Prohibition was enacted via a constitutional amendment, yet a large portion of people simply ignored it. It always gets understated what a massive crisis this ended up being for the integrity of the US Constitution. If one amendment was seen as optional by an increasingly larger group of people, maybe the others would be as well. It was important for the integrity of the government that they repeal the amendment. I have a feeling if prohibition were enacted via a complicated loophole like the one that keeps the horrible 21 drinking age afloat it would have been much harder to repeal in full.

View on HN

You can actually see this happening today with abortion, which is becoming increasingly unobtainable in the U.S. despite being (theoretically) a Constitutional right.

Interesting observation. There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion and it being a right, though. So what we are actually seeing is widespread disrespect for Supreme Court rulings taking hold. The recent ruling on gay marriage is only going to accelerate that trend.

Why would anyone respect the judiciary when all 10 of the unit tests from the Bill of Rights are presently failing?

I haven't heard anything about soldiers quartering in the homes of private Americans without their consent.

Mitchell v. City of Henderson

Very interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henderson_Police_Department#Mi...

"Anthony Mitchell claims in a lawsuit that on July 10, 2011 he was at home, when officers called his home and said they needed to occupy the house in order to gain a "tactical advantage" in dealing with a domestic violence case at a neighbor's home. Mr. Mitchell told the police that he did not want them entering his home. Officers showed up a bit later and broke down the door anyway.

The lawsuit alleges that officers are guilty of crimes including assault, battery and abuse of processes as well as violating constitutional amendments, notably, the suit alleges officers violated the Third Amendment to the US Constitution"

The Instapundit (a law professor) has written a paper on how things like invasions of electronic privacy fit the concepts behind the 3rd Amendment (a major reason the Brits did it was surveillance of the occupied houses' inhabitants): http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=2616034

He wrote this popular treatment a few months before the above paper: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/01/constitutio...

A couple of years before that he wrote this general column focusing specifically on the Henderson event: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/07/third-amend...

> There is nothing in the Constitution about abortion and it being a right

Not true. Read the Ninth amendment.

> If one amendment was seen as optional by an increasingly larger group of people, maybe the others would be as well.

There is no shortage of amendments which are seen as optional by the government and by the general population.

The worst is that in some places - like Chicago - Al Capone arguably had more political power than the legitimately elected government.

The parallels in Mexico/Central America/South America are profound. "You will take my silver, or you will take my lead". - Pablo Escobar.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com