Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: William Terrell
The liquor prohibition at the fed level took an amendment to our Constitution.

The bogus assertions that local prohibitions are unconstitutional fails, so you switch to talking about federal prohibitions. Even that tired shell game fails.

The Anti-Saloon League and the Woman's Christian Temperance Union "oversaw the election of the two-thirds majorities necessary in both houses of Congress to initiate what became the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

See http://prohibition.history.ohio-state.edu/asl/

The Anti-Saloon League sought a Constitutional Amendment because they felt it would be more difficult to repeal than legislation.

"An amendment to the Constitution obviously appealed to temperance reformers more than a federal statute banning liquor. A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute but, with the shift of a relatively few votes, could likewise topple one. Drys feared that an ordinary law would be in constant danger of being overturned owing to pressure from liquor industry interests or the growing population of liquor-using immigrants. A constitutional amendment, on the other hand, though more difficult to achieve, would be impervious to change. Their reform would not only have been adopted, the Anti-Saloon League reasoned, but would be protected from future human weakness and backsliding."

Repealing National Prohibition by David Kyvig, Copyright 1979 by the University of Chicago

"The day is unlikely to come when the eighteenth amendment will be repealed."

--President Warren Harding, 2nd Annual Message, December 8, 1922


130 posted on 01/12/2003 4:00:34 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies ]


To: Roscoe
Roscoe: "False. Local prohibitions predate our Constitution."

Irrelevant. There are dry counties in the states, but controlled by the state constitutions. The liquor prohibition at the fed level took an amendment to our Constitution. 125 -WT-

The bogus assertions that local prohibitions are unconstitutional fails,

Not so. Dry counties are 'regulating' the public sale & drinking of booze. A fiat prohibition on private use would be a constitutional violation.

so you switch to talking about federal prohibitions. Even that tired shell game fails.

So you decree, just as all prohibitionists love fiat decrees.
Move to Singapore roscoe, if you love 'benevolent' dictatorships.

134 posted on 01/12/2003 4:38:32 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies ]

To: Roscoe
The bogus assertions that local prohibitions are unconstitutional fails, so you switch to talking about federal prohibitions. Even that tired shell game fails.

I didn't switch anything; I was hoping it wouldn't be necessary to explain it. I'm not concerned about local regulation; I prefer it.

"Local" prohibitions are done under the police power of the state. The police power can be activated by anything that presents a danger to the public health, welfare and safety. The polpow is extensive and unlimited, but the danger must be specified and demonstratable, must be constitutional, and the remedy being possible and effective. Read the Slaughterhouse cases for more.

Any prohibition or limitation in the states is done under the polpow. In the case of alcohol, some states left it up to counties. I would be more than happy to see regulation of vegetation and it products where it belongs, in the STATES.

The police power is not constitutional. You probably won't find the phrase "police power" in the text of the constitutions, I haven't seen it in the several I've read through. I didn't read them word for word.

The police power is common law. Without it the state couldn't keep order at all, so couldn't exist. The existence of a state implies police powers.

The federal government has none of this, or at least is not supposed to. Every power the fed has is in the constitution because the fed originated as a construct for the states where people actually lived. People do not live in the United States unles they're living in a federal district. They live in a state.

States can't be made to enforce a federal law. The sheriff of a county can summarily eject federal officers (offfice of sheriff is second in executive power for a state). The states can't be made to do a great many things. That's why the feds came up with a redistribution of money back to the states, with strings attached.

The Anti-Saloon League sought a Constitutional Amendment because they felt it would be more difficult to repeal than legislation.

The fed's ghost of a police power has had only the authority given to it by the media. And the people they influence. That's why 1-8-3 is successful now, but wouldn't have been successful in 1919. Notice it is the only one that could be stretched with any rational excuse, but the act of choosing a 1-8 power to use shows by that very fact it was to be used for a purpose not to just to regulate commerce.

In that sense, any clause could be hijacked to authorize anything Congress wants to do, thereby producing an "alternative" to an amendment.

So, no, only an amendment could be used. Until the system had time to turn out dumb citizens.

The "Anti-Saloon League and the Woman's Christian Temperance Union" would have only considered it because they were morons, as was duly proved when by trying to prohibit an item with a large natural market.

137 posted on 01/12/2003 5:48:51 PM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson