their respective Attorneys General brought original suits in the United
States Supreme Court to have the amendment declared invalid. Seven test
cases were argued together in the Supreme Court, five days in all being
devoted to the argument. It will be of interest to note some of the
reasons advanced against the validity of the amendment, as they are
summarized in the official report.[1]

[Footnote 1: National Prohibition cases, 253 U.S., 350.]

The Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island argued[1] that:

The amendment is an invasion of the sovereignty of the
complaining state and her people, not contemplated by the
amending clause of the Constitution. The amending power ... is
not a substantive power but a precautionary safeguard inserted
incidentally to insure the ends set forth in that instrument
against errors and oversights committed in its formation.
Amendments, as the term indeed implies, are to be limited to
the correction of such errors....

It is "This Constitution" that may be amended. "This
Constitution" is not a code of transient laws but a framework
of government and an embodiment of fundamental principles. By
an amendment, the identity or purpose of the instrument is
not to be changed; its defects may be cured, but "This
Constitution" must remain. It would be the greatest absurdity
to contend that there was a purpose to create a limited
government and at the same time to confer upon that government
a power to do away with its own limitations.