[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Yes, because you stated that it was not. The mere existence of some thing shows that someone deemed it necessary.

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?

[robertpaulsen]

"War acts are also irrelevant as Congress and the President may indeed overstep their peace time powers in times of war."

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I mean, Section 1 repealed the 18th amendment.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)

[robertpaulsen]

Oh. Anything to support your statement that the 18th amendment was required? The mere existence of an amendment does not mean it was required.

The first ten amendments are an excellent example. The Founding Fathers themselves stated that they were redundant.