Posted on 10/01/2002 7:16:59 AM PDT by Phantom Lord
What Amendment to the Constitution has ever been REPEALED other than the 18th?
None. Why do you ask?
You're right. It banned the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol. According to your cites of the 2nd Circuit, POSSESSION of alcohol should have been banned as well, as ANY alcohol would of had to have been manufactured and transported in order for it to exist. As such, it WOULD effectively be banned under current day guidelines.
However, even the feds didn't want to push the envelope back then, as they knew that people weren't stupid enough to allow them to get away with something so unconstitutional.
Hmm.
False. Read it.
Because it is obvious that if the 18th is the only Amendment that's ever been repealed, it never had the support that those who pushed for it had claimed. It only lasted 14 years, which isn't that much time in the scheme of things.
Perhaps they should have gone the other route as I've previously mentioned, as IF there was already major opposition to the Amendment at it's proposal, then a simple Act of Congress would have sufficient to prohibit the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol. That would have appeased the proponants of Prohibition, and would have avoided both the process of amending the Consitution, and later the necessity of amending it again only 14 years later to repeal that original amendment.
You still haven't answered the question as to why it was necessary to add a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol when a simple Act of Congress would have been sufficient to do just that.
True, but the principles involved are flawed. Our legal system operates under the premise that you are innocent until proven guilty. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to define what is or is not legal in matters involving interstate commerce. Prohibitions based on Commerce Clause authority imply that the intent to engage in interstate commerce is assumed, without having to prove it.
Wrong, the support in 1919 was overwhelming. Opposition grew over the following 14 years resulting in its eventual repeal.
BTW, it did NOT do that. Read it.
Possession of contraband can be a crime in itself. That goes back to the earliest days of our nation.
Maybe, but the law makes no distinction between the "closet growlight" and a warehouse operation. Both are considered "manufacturing" and viewed as violations of federal law under the Commerce Clause, and requires the assumption of involvement in "interstate commerce" for both, even though one of them plainly is not.
False. Read it. I HAVE read it Roscoe. If you mean I used the word alcohol instead of intoxicating liquors, or that I forgot to add "for beverage purposes", stop playing semantic word games...
Perhaps YOU should read it Roscoe.
Article XVIII
Proposed by Congress December 19, 1917; proclaimed adopted January 29, 1919.
Wrong. Penalties frequently increase with quantities.
Do you have a link to that information?
[Sheriff] Hayes said in a telephone interview that Helriggle's gun was "found in close proximity of his body." Asked if a blue cup was also discovered, Hayes said, "I don't know what cup they're talking about."
How close is "close"? Inches? The next room? A few jackbooted steps closer than it was when the kid got blasted?
Exactly. Beer and wine were legal. Now, who was given the power of defining "intoxicating liquor?"
Prohition based on Commerce Clause authority, and assuming criminal intent to sell in interstate commerce based on simple posession does not.
Penalties may increase with quantity, but the charge will be the same, and will still assume interstate commerce involvement, even when none is apparent, and the assumption is unreasonable.
Roscoe: Wrong, the support in 1919 was overwhelming. Opposition grew over the following 14 years resulting in its eventual repeal.
BUT Roscoe, in post #374 you said..
Me: Er, they didn't TRY to repeal the 18th Amendment as soon as it was ratified Roscoe.
Roscoe: There was opposition from the very beginning.
NOW I can see what others mean when they say that you engage in circular arguments...
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.