The reason prohibition had an amendment but not the drug war…

Decades ago I heard a speaker say emphatically that the country had gone downhill because whereas the government needed the 18th amendment to make alcohol (a drug) illegal (or really unlawful), it had made many other drugs (heroin, etc.) illegal without an amendment. I think he was implying the government was running rough-shod over the constitution.

I think the big difference is that now the government is prosecuting persons not people. People have been conned into using the identity of a corporation, thereby acting as the agents for that corporation. A living man has the name john of the smith family. He think mistakenly asks for the birth certificate, actually a copy of the certificate, for the corporate person named JOHN SMITH. The government files charges against that corporate person. Sends a letter to the living man. The living man thinks he has to go to court, and he mistakenly accepts responsibility for the criminal matter.

The government doesn’t need an amendment to prosecute its own corporate persons.

Further the government may be using a municipal corporation it created called….UNITED STATES. So we have one corporation charging another corporation. Corporations can only interact with other corporations. That’s why they want thou to be the agent for the corporation they created. The corporation cannot be sent to jail, but the officers or agents of the corporation can.

For some proof about the meaning of the word person, see this first part of the legal definition of ‘conveyance’:

CONVEYANCE, contracts. The transfer of the title to land by one or more persons to another or others. By the term persons is here understood not only natural persons but corporations.

The government makes the assumption that person means corporation. When a judge says, “are you that person?” the question really means, “Are you the agent for that corporate person?” And in most cases, the answer would be…no.