No less an authority than Alexander Hamilton warned against such an expansive interpretation of the necessary-and-proper clause. In Federalist #33, he gave the example of the federal government restricting the power of state governments to tax, so as to preserve its own tax base, and said that a law like that would be clearly unconstitutional. A complete prohibition on alcohol in order to assist with a prohibition of interstate transport of alcohol would be highly analogous to his example.
Good night, I'll catch up on this in the morning.
Yeah, I can see that.
"A complete prohibition on alcohol in order to assist with a prohibition of interstate transport of alcohol would be highly analogous to his example."
How about, "A complete prohibition on alcohol in order to assist with a prohibition of interstate transport of alcohol would be highly analogous to the 1968 GCA and the 1994 AWB. (Ooh. robertpaulsen hits a home run.)
The 1994 AWB was challenged on commerce clause grounds by Navegar and Penn Arms, but the USSC rejected it without comment.
A statute banning alcohol would have worked.