Alright, Jesus. It's like you took a vocabulary word-jumble and decided to throw meaning to the wind. Here we go down the rabbit hole:

> False equivalency. What you said was, in fact:

That's not a false equivalency, it's an actual equivalency. In your example, you go on to mention the 18th amendment, which is part of the constitution, and is therefore constitutional. And it is. But so is the 21st amendment.

> blah blah blah judicial precedence (you say it a bunch)

You missed this concept entirely. In no way does judicial precedence rewrite the Constitution whatsoever. It provides an interpretation of the Constitution, as that's the formal function of the judicial branch - to judge the laws of the land. Crazy, I know, but you don't say "judicial precedence has repealed law x y and z". That's not how the term is used, and so no, judicial precedence has not repealed the 18th amendment. No one says that, as that's not how the term is used.

Furthermore, you go on to mention the time in which a law was passed. That has absolutely nothing to do with judicial precedence whatsoever. Judicial precedence is when a judge sets a standard for how a law is interpreted. It's got absolutely nothing to do with the novelty of the law. So, this is not true:

> The Commerce Clause, on those grounds, cannot infringe either states' rights or any of the amendments enumerated within the Bill of Rights, as each were ratified into the Constitution ex post facto which, under judicial precedence, prohibits its effect being interpreted as you've stated.

It's actually kind of laughable that you think this is true, because of your massive beef with the PATRIOT act. Weren't you just saying how unconstitutional the PATRIOT act is, and how it steps on all kinds of other laws?

You're not even internally consistent.

> For the same reason I won't expound further on the other points, because I believe you're intractable on the subject.

It's fairly ironic you say that, given how similarly I feel towards you. I'm fairly certain you've built up a bubble of ignorance, and anyone who challenges that bubble is, well, treated as you've been treating me. You pretend like I've been insulting your character (I don't know you character, so that's literally impossible). The little I've been able to discern about you has been based on my observations of what you've been writing, and how offended you get when I've challenged your opinion.

It will be readily apparent to any poor soul who decides to read your text how little you know of the topic at hand, and this is not what you call an "insult". It's an observation. You think the commerce clause has been rendered moot by other constitutional amendments, you think the Federalist Papers are worth reading beyond their historical significance, you think "judicial precedence" is when new laws supersede (the word I suspect you're looking for in the first place) old, and you get super offended on the Internet over what amounts to normal conversation.

But please, we'll continue this until you tire, because I'm going to break your bubble of ignorance - I'm determined to. I want you to have to come to terms with the fact that you don't actually know very much on this topic, and to admit that you aren't nearly educated enough to say what's wrong with this country.

We'll start simple - what is it exactly you think I'm intractable on? I suspect you haven't the faintest idea anymore, if you ever actually did understand my viewpoint (again, this is an observation and not an insult - I can't believe I have to label these things for you).