To: aruanan
Prohibition didn't require a constitutional amendment.Really? What would have been the constitutional justification for it absent an amendment?
142 posted on
07/27/2002 7:09:27 AM PDT by
inquest
To: inquest
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).
143 posted on
07/27/2002 9:16:05 AM PDT by
aruanan
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson