Posted on 02/27/2005 2:55:24 PM PST by 82Marine89
I really can't take anything seriously that's posted in Comic Book font.
robertpaulsen wrote:
The "FDR court" did not stretch the Commerce Clause. It upheld various federal enactments as necessary and proper means to achieve the legitimate objective of regulating interstate commerce.
In post #144 you said there was a need for a constitutional amendment. You made the initial claim, yet I'm the one who has to support my challenge to your claim?
Fine. But then you owe me proof why the 18th amendment was required -- some reference or cite to that effect.
"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."
-- druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/rnp/RNP1.html
In addition, Congress did pass some statutes against liquor during this period:
1) The Webb-Kenyon Act in 1913, a long-sought federal statute against transporting liquor into states that wished to block its entry.
2) The Lever Food and Fuel Control Act of August 1917 banned the production of distilled spirits for the duration of the war.
3) 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.
Perhaps the best proof that the federal government had the power to regulate alcohol is the fact that the 21st amendment contained a Section 2. Section 1 repealed the 18th amendment. But Section 2 was added, turning the power to regulate alcohol from the federal government exclusively to the states.
"This Court promptly recognized the impact of the Twenty-First Amendment, noting that it “sanctions the right of a state to legislate concerning intoxicating liquors brought from without, unfettered by the Commerce Clause.”Ziffrin, Inc. v.Reeves, 308 U.S. 132, 138 (1939). This Court has continued to recognize that the Twenty-First Amendment “primarily created an exception to the normal operation of the Commerce Clause,”Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 206(1976), and that the resultant authority of the state under the Amendment over importation of alcohol beverages “is transparently clear.”
-- In a Brief for MICHIGAN BEER & WINE WHOLESALERS ASSOCIATION v. ELEANOR HEALD
Defending? I call it explaining. But I do it for those who are interested in the truth.
You, on the other hand, may be quite content to rant and rave that FDR "expanded" and "twisted" the Commerce Clause to suit his agenda. This is what you've heard. This is what you believe. This is what you repeat.
Those who disagree with you -- well, you smugly quip, "They're 'defending the FDR agenda'".
"Explain" away kiddo.
Once again you've outed yourself..
You sentences contradict each other, once the weasel-words "various federal enactments" are clearly defined.
Baloney.
The Commerce Clause is what it is. FDR merely took advantage of the Necessary and Proper Clause power to implement and enforce interstate regulations. The Commerce Clause wasn't "stretched" -- how could it be?
Now, this seems to be just fine with you as long as the Necessary and Proper Clause is used to regulate commerce by removing intrastate obstacles (One might ask, without that clause, where would you be? Answer: Stretching the Commerce Clause).
But you get your panties in a knot when it's used to regulate commerce by prohibiting intrastate activities, even though the courts have ruled that "to regulate" includes "to prohibit".
You're pretty selective as to how you interpret the constitution.
Took unjustified "advantage," yes.
Now, this seems to be just fine with you as long as the Necessary and Proper Clause is used to regulate commerce by removing intrastate obstacles
I never said that. Let me know if you're ever ready to address what I've actually said.
the courts have ruled
FDR (or post) courts?
I'm paraphrasing, weasel.
We only privatize the procurement end of it, not the actual military forces.
1) The Webb-Kenyon Act in 1913, a long-sought federal statute against transporting liquor into states that wished to block its entry.
That actually does fall under interstate commerce.
Irrelevant.
2) The Lever Food and Fuel Control Act of August 1917 banned the production of distilled spirits for the duration of the war.
3) 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.
War acts are also irrelevant as Congress and the President may indeed overstep their peace time powers in times of war.
Once again irrelevant.
Got anything better?
The First World War ended on November 11, 1918 -- The War Prohibition Act passed on November 21, 1918. We were no longer at war.
You're silent on the 21st amendment. Why was Section 2 added?
I mean, Section 1 repealed the 18th amendment. Bada bing, bada boom, that's all that's needed. According to you, the states then have exclusive power -- like they did before the 18th was ratified, right?
Then why Section 2? Section 2 which reads: "The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited."
Seems to me that the power to regulate alcohol now lies exclusively with the state, not the federal government. Note that it doesn't say, "in violation of state or federal laws".
"This Court's decisions since have confirmed that the (wording of 2 of the Twenty-first) Amendment primarily created an exception to the normal operation of the Commerce Clause. See, e. g., Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp., 377 U.S. 324, 330 (1964); Carter v. Virginia, 321 U.S. 131, 139 -140 (1944) (Frankfurter, J., concurring); Finch & Co. v. McKittrick, 305 U.S. 395, 398 (1939).
-- Justice Brennan, Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)
The first ten amendments are an excellent example. The Founding Fathers themselves stated that they were redundant.
You notice that they put an ending time on it showing that they knew where the power was coming from.
"The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited."
It returned the rights to the states that had been taken from them.
The eighteenth amendment did two things. It outlawed "intoxicating liquors" and it took the right out of the hands of the state. When you reverse something like that you must put things back the way you found them. Section 2 confirmed that this was done.
Section 1 did that.
Prior to Prohibition, the states had the power. As I previously posted, half of them had already prohibited liquor in one form or another.
If you want to return to the way things were, you simply repeal the 18th. Yes? No? What's so hard to understand?
Section 2 went farther then a simple repeal. It placed the power to regulate alcohol exclusively with the states. The states wrote the laws, not the federal government. That's different. That didn't exist before.
The federal government, however, kept some form of control. That is, if a state prohibited alcohol to women, for example, that would violate the Equal Protection Clause and the feds could step in.
But the federal government could not use the Commerce Clause anymore to regulate alcohol.
Third request. Where is your documentation that the 18th wasrequired?
That is because you are not a Libertarian. Don't let LP con men tell you differently. We Libertarians have a few things in common with political conservatives, but as Libertarians we are not politically conservative.
Personally I'm quite conservative. But when I present my Libertarian views, I am definitely not conservative.
Twentyfive years ago, the LP would have kicked out half the conservative members it now holds in high esteem. Now it attempts to quietly jump past its anti-conservative agenda. This passive form of dishonesty is not going to last. The LP will either become a conservative compromising spoiler in American politics, or it will return to its principles and thereby reinvigorate it greatest potential, that is to carry the message of economic freedom to those who other wise will not listen. If in the process, the movement grows so as to make make the LP a truly major political party, fine. If not, so what? As the LP will have successfully accomplished something great for America regardless.
You are correct sir!
You're misrepresenting ... as usual.
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.