View Poll Results: Is an amendment necessary for these changes?

Voters
15. You may not vote on this poll
  • Prohibition yes and Healtch Care yes

    9 60.00%
  • Prohibition yes and Healtch Care no

    1 6.67%
  • Prohibition no and Healtch Care yes

    2 13.33%
  • Prohibition no and Healtch Care no

    3 20.00%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Was an amendment needed to pass prohibition?

  1. #1
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Was an amendment needed to pass prohibition?

    It feels like the government has a lot more power today than what they had 90 years ago. 90 years ago, they believed that they didn't have the power at the National level to restrict our consumption of alcohol, according to the constitution as written.

    Were we too strict in our interpretation of the constitution when passing the 18th amendment? Or are we being too lenient now? The risk of being too lenient is of course inevitable corruption at the federal level. We're losing the balance of power between the people and the government if this is true.

    To be more specific - I'll ask about the necessity for amendments for the Health Care reform and Prohibition. (in my view, they both affect our lives simply by being citizens, both are being enforced at the federal level, but one was passed via an amendment and the other passed as a simple bill)

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    My own world
    Last Seen
    04-05-11 @ 10:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    407

    Re: Was an amendment needed to pass prohibition?

    Our personal liberty has been so usurped since the late 19th century that the degree of loss of personal freedom is nearly unfathomable to anyone with a functioning brain. A land of milk and honey, (both of which better not have too much fat, salt, or sugar) that has sown a population of fat, lazy, malcontents, deserving every bit of the sloth our lives have become.

    On the positive, there is of late a concerted effort on behalf of a large and growing citizenry, the desire to fully understand civics, the three branches of our government, and enumerated powers, granted by the constitution(WE THE PEOPLE).

  3. #3
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,967

    Re: Was an amendment needed to pass prohibition?

    If they wanted prohibition now they wouldn't bother trying to do a constitutional amendment.

    They'd do something similar to what's done now with the drinking age, where states are more then welcome to have a law other than the federal law but if they do so they'll not be privy to important types of federal assistance thus nearly making it a certainty that the states will comply.

  4. #4
    Advisor DontDoIt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Illinois, Land of Liberals
    Last Seen
    11-22-15 @ 12:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    391

    Re: Was an amendment needed to pass prohibition?

    I'm sure politicians wouldn't be corrupt with the public being more lenient, would they?


  5. #5
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Re: Was an amendment needed to pass prohibition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    If they wanted prohibition now they wouldn't bother trying to do a constitutional amendment.

    They'd do something similar to what's done now with the drinking age, where states are more then welcome to have a law other than the federal law but if they do so they'll not be privy to important types of federal assistance thus nearly making it a certainty that the states will comply.
    I agree completely. But the question isn't how would they actually achieve it. The question is if they decided to pass legislation on the matter at the federal level, do you think they would need an amendment to the constitution?

  6. #6
    White trash on dope.
    d0gbreath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,875

    Re: Was an amendment needed to pass prohibition?

    Prohibition was for all citizenry. The new HC is an option. People are free to keep the HC plan that they currently have. So no, it's not a mandate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
    The systems that ensure freedom and liberty are breaking down and fundamentalism is growing. Nobody is righteous anymore.


  7. #7
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Last Seen
    01-19-12 @ 03:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    358

    Re: Was an amendment needed to pass prohibition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mickey Shane View Post
    Prohibition was for all citizenry. The new HC is an option. People are free to keep the HC plan that they currently have. So no, it's not a mandate.
    There are a lot of good reasons to support the Health Care law. Most of which I disagree with, but I understand their point and want to achieve those same goals with different means. Your response just makes little sense to me. "People are free to keep the HC plan that they currently have. So no, it's not a mandate." - you understand that people cannot choose to not have healthcare plan, right? They're free to choose which healthcare plan they have, sure. But they can't choose to not have a plan. They must have a plan. That's the very definition of a mandate! Whether or not it's a mandate certainly is not a debatable point, given the definition of 'mandate'. It is. The dems know that it is. The question is the constitutionality of that mandate.

  8. #8
    White trash on dope.
    d0gbreath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,875

    Re: Was an amendment needed to pass prohibition?

    Quote Originally Posted by fredmertz View Post
    There are a lot of good reasons to support the Health Care law. Most of which I disagree with, but I understand their point and want to achieve those same goals with different means. Your response just makes little sense to me. "People are free to keep the HC plan that they currently have. So no, it's not a mandate." - you understand that people cannot choose to not have healthcare plan, right? They're free to choose which healthcare plan they have, sure. But they can't choose to not have a plan. They must have a plan. That's the very definition of a mandate! Whether or not it's a mandate certainly is not a debatable point, given the definition of 'mandate'. It is. The dems know that it is. The question is the constitutionality of that mandate.
    True, not having HC will be a no-no. Of course I can't escape having auto insurance either. Don't say "don't drive". It's not yet an option in this town.

    The "afford-ability" is what is supposed to make it appealing, or more appealing than not having HC insurance. Young people are the most likely to not want to buy an insurance that they don't need. Of course they do fun stuff like riding the half pipe on a motorcycle.
    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
    The systems that ensure freedom and liberty are breaking down and fundamentalism is growing. Nobody is righteous anymore.


  9. #9
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,595
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Was an amendment needed to pass prohibition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mickey Shane View Post
    Prohibition was for all citizenry. The new HC is an option. People are free to keep the HC plan that they currently have. So no, it's not a mandate.
    Prohibition was for those desiring a "feel good" for having forced their agenda upon the citizenry.
    The "those" did not care one mote for the feelings of others, even if they were moderate in their consumption of alcohol.
    According to the conservatives, the Affordable Health Care is mandatory..., so which is it ?
    Who has the patience and time to go through 1,800 pages ?
    Democrats, have you wondered why so many do not like the HC plan ??

  10. #10
    don't panic
    marduc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    10-22-17 @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,301

    Re: Was an amendment needed to pass prohibition?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    If they wanted prohibition now they wouldn't bother trying to do a constitutional amendment.

    They'd do something similar to what's done now with the drinking age, where states are more then welcome to have a law other than the federal law but if they do so they'll not be privy to important types of federal assistance thus nearly making it a certainty that the states will comply.
    We have prohibition now, and it is not based on a constitutional amendment.

    On a side note.. to end drug prohibition on a federal level it WOULD require a constitutional amendment or else we would be in violation of international treaty, specifically the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

    Article 36: PENAL PROVISIONS

    1. (a) Subject to its constitutional limitations, each Party shall adopt such measures as will ensure that cultivation, production, manufacture, extraction, preparation, possession, offering, offering for sale, distribution, purchase, sale, delivery on any terms whatsoever, brokerage, dispatch, dispatch in transit, transport, importation and exportation of drugs contrary to the provisions of this Convention, and any other action which in the opinion of such Party may be contrary to the provisions of this Convention, shall be punishable offences when committed intentionally, and that serious offences shall be liable to adequate punishment particularly by imprisonment or other penalties of deprivation of liberty.
    Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs - Wikisource
    Last edited by marduc; 02-08-11 at 04:11 PM.
    Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
    Drugs are bad, prohibition is worse

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •