[maxstep]

I was just wondering if anybody knows a specific reason why we had to have a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol in the twenties, but no such amendment exists in banning illegal drugs today.

[Decky]

I was just wondering if anybody knows a specific reason why we had to have a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol in the twenties, but no such amendment exists in banning illegal drugs today.

Because the constitution is just a scrap of paper that the government only pays lip service to. It is essentially irrelevant in the modern United States of America.

[maxstep]

It's a damn shame too. It's the supreme law of the land, everything government does must fit into the framework of the constitution and we pass it off as bullshit written two hundred years ago. The day that the constitution is seen as irrelevant is the same day all Americans will be stripped of all their rights, and its already happening now.

[dgun]

The reason they did so was to make it illegal in the entire country. Why congress could not have just passed a law, I'm not sure. It may have something to do with the perception that congress didn't have the authority to pass such a law, that it was the realm of the states. Even today there are some counties and municipalities where selling alcohol is still prohibited, or prohibited on Sunday only.
Prohibition and what led to it was an interesting part of American history and I need to study it a bit more.

I know there had long been a movement against alcohol, and IIRC Lincoln himself was a teetotaler. So that's a good 55-60 years before prohibition. I think the politicians got caught up in this whirlwind of self-righteous bullshit, it being so easy an issue to evangelize and take advantage of, and the next thing you know we had an amendment.

[Eran]

Because the constitution is just a scrap of paper that the government only pays lip service to. It is essentially irrelevant in the modern United States of America.

Decky! We Agree!!!

As Decky suggests, the reason is changing attitudes towards the Constitution, and, specifically, the enumerated powers concept.

Before FDR's court-packing, prevailing opinion was that the Federal government can only intervene in specific areas as enumerated in the body of the Constitution. Those exclude, of course, both alcohol and drug prohibition, and many many other things the federal government is currently involved in.

After the New Deal, the court has changed its mind (or, which is equivalent, changed the Constitution) to effectively ignore the enumerated powers. Asked today, government lawyers are unable to articulate a single decision that is outside the powers of the federal government.

[dgun]

After the New Deal

There are numerous cases beyond this time frame where the court ruled that congress did not have authority to act.

In fact, I suspect we will see such a ruling pretty soon.

As to "FDR's packing of the court": The most famous aspect of this was not that he packed the court, but that he fought against a court that was trashing certain initiatives as unconstitutional during a period in which people were in dire need; this being the same court that somehow found the “right of contract” in the constitution. What was interesting is that FDR threatened to increase the number of Supreme Court justices to 12 and add judges who would support him. He had the political clout, the backing of the people, and the congressional support to do so. It was this threat that caused the court to relax its stance on certain issues.

[Eran]

There are numerous cases beyond this time frame where the court ruled that congress did not have authority to act.

Really? I though they were few and far between, with the 1995 United States v. Lopez being a rare exception.

It was this threat that caused the court to relax its stance on certain issues.

Agreed. FDR didn't pack the court - he only needed to threaten to pack it.

Naturally I completely reject your narrative ("people were in dire need"). FDR's unconstitutional measures did much to lengthen the 1929 crisis into the longest recession in US history. They did nothing to help people in need. In fact, some measures (like minimum prices) did much to make people's lives worse.

[Kman]

As to "FDR's packing of the court": The most famous aspect of this was not that he packed the court, but that he fought against a court that was trashing certain initiatives as unconstitutional during a period in which people were in dire need

So? That doesnt give him the right to ignore the constitution, especially since they were in dire need because of that incompetant jackass called FDR.

[Decky]

So? That doesnt give him the right to ignore the constitution,

The staving, cold and idle would rather have food, warmth and a job that stay in their wretched state for the benefit of a piece of paper. The government had to step in to stop the capitalists finishing off the American people and the constitution was in the way of that. Thus it was ignored. What is the problem?

[Kman]

The staving, cold and idle would rather have food, warmth and a job that stay in their wretched state for the benefit of a piece of paper. The government had to step in to stop the capitalists finishing off the American people and the constitution was in the way of that. Thus it was ignored. What is the problem?

And state governments couldnt do this instead? Europe doesnt have a centralized welfare system and yet somehow a welfare system still exists.

[dgun]

Really? I though they were few and far between, with the 1995 United States v. Lopez being a rare exception.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 7&page=341

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... invol=99-5

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 1&page=159

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 39&page=87

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 0&page=112

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 6&page=441

Nicklaus v. Simmons 1961
Ginsburg v. Kovrak 1958
DePass v. B. Harris Wool Co 1940
Baird v. Koerner 1960
Schware v. Bd. of Bar Examiners 1957
People ex rel Gilbert v. Babb 1953
Edmonds v. State 1946)
Steier v. N.Y. State Education Comm 1959

Some of these may have been lower court rulings.

Naturally I completely reject your narrative ("people were in dire need").

Well, you can't reject that without being completely unreasonable. You may reject the idea that it was the domain of the federal government to intercede on the people's behalf, which I see you do.

FDR's unconstitutional measures did much to lengthen the 1929 crisis into the longest recession in US history.

And that is the common shtick. It's like with vaudeville: you know a cream pie to the face is coming sooner or later.

A more rational view is that FDR's programs for relief likely had a miniscule impact on the overall numbers, whether you consider the impact positive or negative.

The "FDR caused the great depression" argument is really nothing more than an over-reaction to those who give the New Deal too much credit.

They did nothing to help people in need.

This is just not the case of course. The relief efforts helped a lot of people.

Also:

The SEC was an awesome idea. The reforms in regard to banking (FDIC) did much to bring back people's confidence in the banking system. The TVA has also been awesome. We got off the ridiculous gold standard, bemoaned by libertarians everywhere.

Much good came from the New Deal IMO.

Also, if the New Deal extended the great depression as some claim, how is that the US has prospered so much since then with much of the New Deal still in place? SS, FDIC, SEC, various other programs..

[dgun]

So? That doesnt give him the right to ignore the constitution, especially since they were in dire need because of that incompetant jackass called FDR.

Right, FDR somehow caused the Great Depression before he became President. He was a tricky one.

Kman, I can see you in a federally funded breadline sometime in the future saying “this is so unconstitutional”.

And state governments couldnt do this instead?

Alabama would still have segregated schools today if that applied to everything.

[Kman]

Right, FDR somehow caused the Great Depression before he became President. He was a tricky one.

I never claimed he set it off, I claimed he was a major reason why the depression afflicting the US at the time was not cured.

Kman, I can see you in a federally funded breadline sometime in the future saying “this is so unconstitutional”.

Since I am not an american I doubt that.

Alabama would still have segregated schools today if that applied to everything.

Really? You have proof of segregation being popularly supported in Alabama atm? I would like to see the proof.

[Brio]

I was just wondering if anybody knows a specific reason why we had to have a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol in the twenties, but no such amendment exists in banning illegal drugs today.

It's because the Acts that made these drugs effectively illegal weren't like prohibition outright banning the production and sale of the substance (except for medical purposes), but were done up as tax acts to regulate them. The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 stated "An Act To provide for the registration of, with collectors of internal revenue, and to impose a special tax on all persons who produce, import, manufacture, compound, deal in, dispense, sell, distribute, or give away opium or coca leaves, their salts, derivatives, or preparations, and for other purposes." This was later amended in 1924 to disallow all importation of cocaine/opium.

Similarly in the Marihuanna Tax Act of 1937 was supposed to regulate the production and selling of cannabis, but as the Federal government did not produce the necessary marijuana tax stamps even though it was technically legal, effectively it made it illegal.

These acts were eventually superseded by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 after Leary v. United States deemed (at least the Marihuanna Tax Act) unconstitutional.

The overriding reason why these substances didn't need a constitutional amendment and instead used a slippery slope of acts to prohibit them, is that unlike alcohol which was deemed part of the culture, drugs such as cocaine (blacks) opium (Chinese) and marijuana (Mexicans) were portrayed in the yellow journalism of the day as horrors brought in from these alien cultures to subvert the common white male and steal their women. Thus, drug prohibition laws are interlaced with racism and fear of "others", while in fact it had to do more with commercial interests of the elite. With such fear campaigns having gone on for decades, it became suicidal of any politicians in later years to speak out against such unconstitutional laws as you would be seen as soft on drugs.

[Decky]

And state governments couldnt do this instead? Europe doesnt have a centralized welfare system and yet somehow a welfare system still exists.

More evidence that you are really an American. Let me explain Europe to you, it is not a country.

The countries of Europe are nations, they are not comparable to US states. Germany would be comparable to the U.S.A.

Bavaria be comparable to a state.

See?

[Dr House]

Because the constitution is just a scrap of paper that the government only pays lip service to. It is essentially irrelevant in the modern United States of America.

That's actually not quite true. Federal regulations are by and large bound to the Commerce Clause, and apply only to businesses that trade or operate across state lines. Actual violations to the Constitution (as opposed to flexible readings of existing clauses) are relatively rare; Bill of Rights suspensions (like those that occurred under Hamilton and Lincoln) are constitutionally sound if they apply to treasonous activities (as treason is the only activity specifically criminalized by the Constitution).

More evidence that you are really an American. Let me explain Europe to you, it is not a country.

The countries of Europe are nations, they are not comparable to US states. Germany would be comparable to the U.S.A.

Bavaria be comparable to a state.

See?

And? States have government budgets and levy taxes. If federal government spending is low, and there is popular support for higher spending, states will pick up the slack -- which is what happens in, for example, Switzerland (where the top central income tax bracket is 11%).

[Decky]

And? States have government budgets and levy taxes. If federal government spending is low, and there is popular support for higher spending, states will pick up the slack -- which is what happens in, for example, Switzerland (where the top central income tax bracket is 11%).

Why do you believe that? I am not being facetious, I don't know where you have got that idea from.

[Dr House]

Because they do already. Medicaid is 50% federal and 50% state, and states significantly supplement federal welfare probrams; with bluer states generally making a more generous supplement for obvious reasons. If federal taxes were reduced and federal spending curtailed, these would increase.

And because we have already a sterling example of subnational governments taking up the bulk of the tax and spending burden: Switzerland. The top combined tax bracket in Geneva is 31%, but of that a measly 11% is levied by the confederation.

[Decky]

Because they do already. Medicaid is 50% federal and 50% state, and states significantly supplement federal welfare probrams; with bluer states generally making a more generous supplement for obvious reasons. If federal taxes were reduced and federal spending curtailed, these would increase.

Fair enough; all power to the states (to mangle one of Lenin's fave phrases)!

Sucks to be born in one of the states that doesn't give damn about looking after its residents though.

[Dr House]

The majority of people have no need for state social assistance. Many of the rest can rely on family. Small-government Red states additionally fare better economically than blue states -- nowadays Dixieland and the Rockies are among the best places to find employment (Wyoming, the most libertarian state in the Union, has the fifth-lowest unemployment rate and fifth-highest GDP per capita in the US; as well as the richest county).

Besides, even being homeless in the US (surprisingly a less common occurrence than it is in Canada or Australia) sucks less than being gainfully employed in an unskilled position in the Philippines, or anywhere in SSA (sans possibly South Africa). Hell I wouldn't mind becoming homeless all that much; unless I lived in New York or the northern Prairies and it was winter.