Why Did Prohibition Require a Constitutional Amendment?

[aruanan]

Here's the first paragraph of the amendment:

Section 1--After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

There's no mention of anything but "intoxicating liquors".

[inquest]

Prohibition didn't require a constitutional amendment.

Really? What would have been the constitutional justification for it absent an amendment?

[aruanan]

Really? What would have been the constitutional justification for it absent an amendment?

The same as any other federal law prohibiting any other thing, say possession and use of heroin or driving faster than 55mph (remember that one?). It wasn't that there was no other way to do it except through the constitutional amendment since over 3/5 of the states already had their own form of prohibition. The use of the constitutional amendment was an attempt to imbue someone's idea of social engineering with the sanctity, so to speak, of the U.S. Constitution. It was their way of saying, see, this is such a REALLY, REALLY important thing that it has been enshrined in our Constitution. They were just trying to appropriate the mojo. Also, as I mentioned before, they were also trying to lock in their social agenda in a way that would be the most difficult to undo. As an ironic result of their quest for forcing what they considered to be public morality, they were responsible for a huge crime wave and massive corruption in U.S. society (including the highest murder rates in the history of the U.S. during the last year of Prohibition).

[inquest]

But the point that was raised by Maceman in starting this thread is that Washington routinely gets away with violating the Constitution today. Back in the old days, the courts had a little more backbone in dealing with Congress when Congress exceeded its constitutional authority. Not today.

In order for a federal ban on anything to be constitutional, it would have to be in fulfillment of one of the powers assigned to the federal government by the Constitution.