Why was a constitutional amendment needed to outlaw liquor on a national basis, yet cannibis can be outlawed nationwide with simply a statute?
“Why was a constitutional amendment needed to outlaw liquor on a national basis, yet cannibis can be outlawed nationwide with simply a statute?”
And likewise Cocaine and LSD, both of which were once “legal.”
(asking not because I think it wise to use either, but rather for the legal constitutional aspect)
“Why was a constitutional amendment needed to outlaw liquor on a national basis, yet cannibis can be outlawed nationwide with simply a statute?”
I have asked that question repeatedly in the past and one of the few answers I got was that they didn’t really need to pass a constitutional amendment, they just did to make sure the people really wanted it (or some such nonsense).
When I pointed out that the original federal drug laws were declared unconstitutional by the SC in the 1930’s and were subsequently passed again after FDR threatened to increase the number of SC justices to 15 so he could pack it with yes-men, they have no answer other than the SC never declared it unconstitutional.