Posted on 10/01/2002 7:16:59 AM PDT by Phantom Lord
Oh? How long did it take?
The SALE of absinthe was banned, although possession remains legal to this day. Importation (while a murky subject) for personal use is apparently still legal, although if found by US Customs being brought into the country, it will be confiscated.
The 21st Amendment which repealed the 18th was proposed by Congress February 20, 1933, and proclaimed adopted December 5, 1933.
So that is a little less than 10 months.
I know it sounds radical, but some people think the police should wait until someone actually commits a crime before they arrest them.
That still doesn't explain the logic that says if some of a particular item is bought, sold or traded, then all of it is commerce, and all of it is interstate.
1919 to 1933 is 14 years.
Sorry, I can't hear the voices in your head.
Er, they didn't TRY to repeal the 18th Amendment as soon as it was ratified Roscoe.
The time it took to ratify the 21st Amendment was 10 months. By comparison, the 18th Amendment was proposed on December 19, 1917 and was proclaimed adopted on January 29, 1919. That is a time frame of a little over 13 months...
In any event, how many federal laws have EVER been repealed?
It isn't reasonably possible to make the distinction between the two, as a general rule. A package of illicit drugs doesn't include documentation certifying its origins and various destinations. In practice, enforcement efforts aren't directed toward personal users with a closet growlight.
There was opposition from the very beginning.
Possession of illicit drugs is normally a crime.
Then why pray tell wasn't the possession of alcohol illegal during the Prohibition? Why is it that the Commerce clause is sufficient to PROHIBIT drugs but not alcohol?
Then they shouldn't have proposed and ratified the 18th Amendement. If it were so easy to nullify and Act of Congress as you imply, then perhaps that should have gone THAT route. Perhaps Roscoe, they realized that it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL to PROHIBIT ANYTHING via the Commerce clause.
THAT is the reason why they passed the 18th Amendment, as the Commerce clause DOES NOT EMPOWER Congress to prohibit anything whatsoever.
The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution mandates that federal law supersede state law where there is an outright conflict between such laws. See Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 (9 Wheat) U.S. 1, 210, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824); Free v. Bland, 369 U.S. 663, 666, 82 S. Ct. 1089, 8 L.Ed.2d 180 (1962); Industrial Truck Ass'n, Inc. v. Henry, 125 F.3d 1305, 1309 (9th Cir. 1997) (state law is preempted "where it is impossible to comply with both state and federal requirements, or where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purpose and objectives of Congress"). Recognizing this basic principle of constitutional law, defendants do not contend that Proposition 215 supersedes federal law, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Indeed, Proposition 215 on its face purports only to exempt certain patients and their primary caregivers from prosecution under certain California drug laws-it does not purport to exempt those patients and caregivers from the federal laws.May 13, 1998 Order from the District Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
What Amendment to the Constitution ever faced no opposition?
The 18th Amendment didn't ban alcohol.
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.