On Monday, January 7, 2002, at 09:00 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> I've never quite understood how the
> amendment-not-ratified-properly-in-1913
> argument is supposed to play out.
> If this were 1915 and we suddenly realized that there was some funny
> business going on, that would be one thing.
> But much has changed in the last 90 or so years. Courts have allowed
> the federal government to seize power not granted by the Constitution
> (and, in some cases, strictly prohibited by it). Booze prohibition
> required a constitutional amendment; drug prohibition wouldn't.
> So even if someone were to prove that the 16th Am. wasn't quite kosher,
> what would stop the courts from saying -- it wasn't necessary?
They already have.
--
"Those without creative minds and agile fingers are of course
welcome to hurry up with my fries. And they'll probably use
a GUI to take my order, too."
- Tom Christiansen
