In "Montana v. Egelhoff"?

Court Rationale: The historical record states voluntary intoxication is not an excuse nor justification for the commission of a crime. The burden remains on the df to show that the new common law rule that intoxication may be considered on the question of intent, under the Fourteenth Amendment that it is a fundamental right. Not so. One fifth of the States never adopted or abandoned it. States have kept the common law rule - Disallowing voluntary intox. Has the effect of increasing the punishment for all unlawful acts committed in that state, and deters drunkenness; ensures that those who are incapable of controlling violent impulses while intox. go to prison; society’s moral perception that one who voluntarily impairs is responsible for consequences. }{