Why Did Prohibition Require a Constitutional Amendment?

[Maceman]

I have been wondering lately how come the US Government needed a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, but did not need one to outlaw marijuana and other drugs.

Can any scholarly Freepers explain this to me? As always, your briliant insights, cogent reasoning, encyclopedic historical knowledge and smart-assed remarks wlil be eagerly appreciated.

[aristeides]

Do we have an inherent right to a trial by jury in civil suits at law where the value in controversy exceeds $20 (to name one of the rights we are given by the Bill of Rights)?

[Spruce]

[spit-take]
You owe me a keyboard! The most amusing read of the day!

[tacticalogic]

There is nothing within the Constitution to prevent repeal of any or all of the bill of rights. No, the only true safeguard of our rights is in the people.

I don't know how well it would "play", but I thing the case can be made that the Second Amendment is an exception. The phrase "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" could be read as disqualifying any attempt at repeal. The amendment to repeal would be unconstitutional from the outset.

[FreeTally]

Do we have an inherent right to a trial by jury in civil suits at law where the value in controversy exceeds $20 (to name one of the rights we are given by the Bill of Rights)?

I'm sure you meant recognized. The BoR gives no rights, it limits the feds and recognizes rights. I would agree that "$20" is arbitrary, and a specific dollar amount is not "inherent", while the remedy for the wrong is.

[FreeTally]

I don't know how well it would "play", but I thing the case can be made that the Second Amendment is an exception. The phrase "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" could be read as disqualifying any attempt at repeal. The amendment to repeal would be unconstitutional from the outset.

Yup! I always take the "incorporation" argument with a "grain of salt" because specifically the 4th and 2nd amendments say that no level of government can violate those, while the first does say, "Congress shall make no law...".

[Spruce]

I've often wondered if the second amendment could be circumvented by a tax stamp on ammunition or ammunition components.

[RippleFire]

BUMP

[tacticalogic]

Congress did that with things other than firearms and ammunition for a while. Eventually, the USSC ruled that tax stamps as a prohibition mechanism were unconstitutional.

[Spruce]

Seeing what states are doing to tobacco, there is nothing stopping States from doing this to gunpowder is there?

[Polonius]

This was so well understood that it didn't have to be written down.

I agree that the Bill of Rights codifies individual rights that should be immutable, but the strict constructionist in me can't let the above statement stand. If that's what they meant, they should have written it that way. I would see an attempt to repeal the Bill of Rights as an act of ultimate contempt for the people, but it is not forbidden under the Constitution. The Founders meant for the process itself to deter foolish tampering. Beyond that, anything is fair game if it goes through the amendment process. That is the Constitution we have.

[raygun]

Article V of the Constitution is pretty explicit about ammending the Constitution. The reason that the Bill of Rights as the first 10 ammendments are enshrined in a separate document, is because there is absolutely no place for the rights enumerated - being inalienable rights of man bestowed the Creator - in the body of the Constitution. The framework of the Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress. The Bill of Rights explicitly limits the specific matters over which Congress has no authority; they would be usurping a higher authority. While technically the Bill of Rights (or any part thereof) could be dissolved, it would be anathema to our concept of the origin of the rights of man and where government's authority to govern originates. This is a doctrine that is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. Obviously, should the present hysteria concerning seperation of church and state continue to perpetuate itself, the issue will become a mute point and the American people will resign themselves to adopting a view similiar to that stipulated in the U.N. Declaration of the Rights of Man ie. the rights of man are defined in accordance to law as long as and until the law granting any arbitrary right is revoked by authority of the government.

There is no spirit to the Constitution, it is a fallacy espoused by liberals that it is the spirit should be interpreted as oppossed to the letter of the law.

I leave you with the following quote:

I consider the government of the U.S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or excercises....

Certainly no power to prescribe any religious excercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must rest on the states as far as it can be in any human authority.

- President Thomas Jefferson
in a letter to Samuel Miller, 23 Jan 1808

[tacticalogic]

Seeing what states are doing to tobacco, there is nothing stopping States from doing this to gunpowder is there?

Only the realization of who they're going to piss off if they do, and what their potential response might be.

[raygun]

Read my quote from Jefferson, above.

[FreeTally]

The Bill of Rights explicitly limits the specific matters over which Congress has no authority; they would be usurping a higher authority. While technically the Bill of Rights (or any part thereof) could be dissolved, it would be anathema to our concept of the origin of the rights of man and where government's authority to govern originates. This is a doctrine that is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

Thanks for the reply. I totally agree. What I bolded is what I was getting at when I said "spirit of the Constitution". I surely didn't mean the 21st century re-interpretation nonsense.

[raygun]

Here's another thought: We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

-President John Adams
in and address to the military
11 Oct, 1798

[aristeides]

Under the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the case in which it upheld the Harrison Act, United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86 (1919), it would be constitutional to impose a prohibitive tax on ammunition: "The act may not be declared unconstitutional because its effect may be to accomplish another purpose as well as the raising of revenue. If the legislation is within the taxing authority of Congress -- that is sufficient to sustain it."

[vin-one]

Hey Appy; didn't we just have this discussion a few minutes ago....

[raygun]

There is no spirit there to be read. Our fundemental concept of the origin of the rights of man are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

To destroy the Bill of Rights would be assailing the very foundations of our country. I would hazard it would take nothing short of a Constitutional Convention.

[O Neill]

Under the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the case in which it upheld the Harrison Act, United States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86 (1919), it would be constitutional to impose a prohibitive tax on ammunition.

Yes...or tomatoes, for that matter. That's my understanding of the importance of the Harrison Act vis-a-vis drug (controlled substance) enforcement. Because we are blessed with the God-given rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and assuming that consumption of tomatoes is one person's chosen path toward happiness, it would be entirely UNLAWFUL and UN-Constitutional for Congress to pass a law prohibiting the CONSUMPTION of tomatoes.

BUT, by passing a prohibitive tax measure on tomato production, transportation or possession, the Harrison Act TRANSFORMS the 'hidden' objective of Congress (preventing the people from consuming tomatoes) into a perfectly Constitutional activity.

Without the Harrison Act and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it (that you cited), Citizen's throughout our Country would be free to imbibe in marijuana consumption, opium consuption, cocaine consumption, methampetamine consumption, and on and on, in pusuit of their individual strivings toward 'happiness' at will!

[WindMinstrel]

Ah, you're right. Most Americans aren't very religious, so we should throw the Constitution out the window and start a theocracy.