Ideas matter. If you control the terms of debate, you control the outcome. And for the last 25 years, the terms of debate in the U.S. have almost entirely been set by corporate and far-right interests.
Posted on 09/16/2004 5:04:47 AM PDT by publius1
I found this -- it may be of interest to you. The following is an excerpt:
"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."
There were a few federal statutes passed which dealt with alcohol on a national level prior to Prohibition. To wit (from the same source):
-- The Lever Food and Fuel Control Act of August 1917 banned the production of distilled spirits for the duration of the war.
-- The War Prohibition Act of November 1918 forbade the manufacture and sale of all intoxicating beverages of more than 2.75 percent alcohol content, beer and wine as well as hard liquor, until demobilization was completed.
-- (C)ongressional passage early in 1913 of the Webb-Kenyon Act, a long-sought federal statute against transporting liquor into states that wished to block its entry.
Lastly, one other point to consider. The 21st amendment not only repealed the 18th (in Section 1), it constitutionally moved the legalization decision from the federal government to the states (in Section 2).
Certainly, Section 2 would not be necessary if the federal government had no power over alcohol at the state level -- The Webb-Kenyon Act, coupled with the existing state power to ban alcohol would invalidate the need for Section 2.
An amendment, similar to Section 2 of the 21st amendment, would be necessary to move the drug legalization decision from the federal government to the states. This has the added advantage of allowing each state a voice in this decision, as some states would choose to keep drugs illegal and their concern would be the drug availability in adjacent states. If only 3 or 4 states wished to legalize drugs, the amendment would (rightly) fail. (Unlike alcohol, where all states agreed to legalize -- imagine if only 3 or 4 states chose to do so.)
That's an interesting argument, but is it Constitutionally valid? If you accept that rationale, is there anything in life that would be exempt from coming under its jurisdiction? Anything can go across state lines, and unless you are willing to patrol borders and set up custom houses between states, I don't see how the feds could act on such a concern without effectively eliminating state authority. Which brings us back to the reality of a national prohibition, not a series of state prohibitions.
Not if the states create laws that result in undue burdens on their neighbors. If FL wanted to make drugs freely available to its citizens, then it shouldn't be GA's responsibility to deal with the negative externalities of that decision - it should be FL's responsibility to assure GA that no one crossing GA's border from FL is carrying those substances, not GA's responsibility to check.
In this highly interconnected world, what decision could escape such an 'externalities' review? How does this differ from being a license for blanket usurpation of state authority by the feds, at their discretion? Could Georgia impose socialized health care upon Florida for the reason that a sickness in Florida could spread to Georgia? Could Georgia insist Florida ban guns because some of those guns made their way into Georgia and were used to kill people?
These concerns do not seem to me to flow from principles with which I am familiar. What may one state impose upon another? What set of reasons reaches the threshold for making such an imposition? Could any majority determine this threshold?
The federal government needs some apparatus to deal with illegal interstate commerce, a matter over which it has constitutional authority. Whether a "drug czar" is the best way to do that is a policy question, not a constitutional one.
I agree, but this misses the point - the feds have zero intention of restricting themselves to interstate commerce. What the apparatus is, is not something that discriminates between interstate and intrastate commerce. To my understanding, that makes the apparatus itself illegal. While we're at it, the apparatus doesn't seem to understand the limits of what it legally may and may not do - for example, the anonymous tip, which is routinely used as a basis for fatal, military-style police actions, contravenes the right to face one's accuser, and the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. Furthermore, the penalties are such that they are far more severe than those for murder, rape, or assault, which are plainly far more serious breaches of the public order.
Then there is the offense to common sense - a person who would commit a crime under the influence of drugs a) aren't the most loyal civic citizens to begin with; and b) can get drugs anyway, even this severe prohibition doesn't stop it in the least.
These are just some of the numerous ways in which this prohibition doesn't add up.
Which is why I specifically said that the Bill of Rights guarantees certain rights, not that it grants them.
They need not be enumerated to exist.
This is true. Additionally, some purported "rights" may exist only in the minds of their advocates.
The ninth amendment explains this. Not confers it, explains it.
Nothing in my posts contradicts this truism.
A fair point; but many alcohol addicts criminally neglect their children, and our response has, rightly in my view, not been to ban alcohol.
Howabout bartenders? Death sentence for them, too?
So,, you withdraw your explanation and amend it?
Dems and Pubs are the two factions of American Socialism.
Someday, the kids are going to notice. ;^)
Still peddling this claim that is unsupported by either the author or the "progressives" whose views he was discussing?
Only two that I am certain of. Neither of them committed violent crimes to feed their addictions, though one was in the nasty habit of shoplifting beer.
Please cite the constitutional enumeration of such power.
So true. And I'm afraid that when the kids finally notice, they're going to say "who cares?" and change the channel.
If the passing of the 18th Amendment doesn't prove that it was necessary (as you claim) then neither does the inclusion of Section 2 in the 21st prove that it was necessary.
It's always a terrible inconvenience to die from lung cancer, artery disease and emphysema. Their families are not destroyed by that?
Alcohol addiction also falls into this category. As well as gambling addiction.
Your post is too vague.
What is the claim that is being peddled? Who is the author to whom you refer?
Common in Chicago. Street people commit crimes for this purpose daily. Lots of them.
Neither of them committed violent crimes to feed their addictions
Perhaps because alcohol is legal and therefore relatively inexpensive?
I don't understand this, I thought federal laws trump state laws, especially on matters of individual rights?
Ideas matter. If you control the terms of debate, you control the outcome. And for the last 25 years, the terms of debate in the U.S. have almost entirely been set by corporate and far-right interests.
He's probably skirted the legalities rather skillfully.
But he's certainly overtly scheming to crash a president and control an election with his massive amounts of money.
He certainly is hostile, openly hostile to our founding values and 2/3rds of the citizens who claim any kind of serious Christianity at all.
He has very clearly stated Communistic orientations which he is eagerly trying to force on the whole world to the trashing of USA sovereignty.
He's a wanted criminal in more than one nation for currency etc. irregularities/crimes.
Besides that, he's an arrogant SOB idiot globalist puppet master.
And more than a little disgusting.
What is the claim that is being peddled?
"A simple congressional majority could adopt a statute [enacting Prohibition]".
Who is the author to whom you refer?
David Kyving (sp?).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.