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)

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).

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

:thumbdown

Zyphlin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

Mickey Shane said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

fredmertz said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Mickey Shane said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 ??

Zyphlin said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs - Wikisource

Mickey Shane said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ugh - the auto insurance "argument" - a few points (and I swear, this is the LAST time I am going to point out the glaring flaws in this argument): 1) Auto coverage is enforced and laws written at the STATE level. Not the federal level. Per the 10th amendment of the constitution, this is within the states' rights as it is not otherwise prohibited to them by the constitution nor granted to the federal government. 2) This only applies to people driving on public roads. If you endanger the public on the public's property, it is the right of the public to protect themselves from you. You do not need auto insurance when driving on your land. The point isn't that 'you can choose not to drive' but rather that the public has the right to protect themselves and their property from drivers 3) it's not an auto-insurance law! It doesn't require you to spend money, but rather have proof of financial responsibility. You can't risk $40k of other people's property if you don't have $40k to cover the damage you can inflict! You can save $40k and keep it in a CD and that will suffice from a legal standpoint. Even the states aren't requiring you to buy insurance (though they could if they wanted to, per the 10th amendment). 4) Auto Insurance, as per point 2, is to protect the public from your negligence. To make you responsible at the state level for your actions if they should happen to infringe on the rights of another. If I don't have health insurance, I am not taking a risk of infringing on the inalienable rights of another.

In short, you're talking about oranges when I'm talking about apples.

Mickey Shane said:

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.

Click to expand...

Mickey - you don't seem to understand. I don't care what is financially attractive and what isn't attractive about this bill. I'm not arguing about it's cost effectiveness and I haven't done a bit of research as to whether the GOP is right that it will cause a deficit or if the Dem's are right and in 3 years, my HC insurance will be significantly cheaper. What I care about is the government following the constitution. What you really should be arguing about is the commerce clause. This is the closest thing you have in your favor, though this law is still is clearly FAR beyond the commerce clause (which is why I assume the dem's aren't bringing it up). How far can we stretch that clause? not this far. An amendment is necessary for the HC insurance law. Then we can argue about it's cost effectiveness or ineffectiveness. But before we jump the gun, let's first discuss the legality of the law.

Mickey Shane said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's not an option, that's why some judges have gotten involved. Even as an option it's unconstitutional in my book.