rm23
Member
Why does the federal government need a Constitutional amendment to have the power to ban alcohol, but only needs to pass a law in order to ban "assault weapons?"
the ban alcohol movement was a VERY popular and 'vocal' ground swell movement, often ran through churches and organized into local 'women' movements and 'clean' committees.
It all depends on exactly what they want to do and how they want to do it.rm23 said:Why does the federal government need a Constitutional amendment to have the power to ban alcohol, but only needs to pass a law in order to ban "assault weapons?"
Frank Ettin said:Nope, the regulation of alcohol under the now repealed 18th Amendment was very different from the current regulation of firearms and drugs.pseudonymity said:It took a constitutional amendmant to give the federal government the power to prohibit alcohol. How are drugs and guns any different?
Actually they are not all that different, and regulations on them are kind of related...
The goal of the prohibitionists was to completely eliminate the manufacture, sale, importation or exportation of alcoholic beverages anywhere and everywhere in the United States. Nothing in the Constitution could support such a broad and plenary exercise of legislative authority by the federal government. So the Constitution had to be amended to allow that.
The 18th Amendment reads:Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
In contrast, the NFA was written as a tax law, and both the Gun Control Act and the Controlled Substances Act (and related laws) were written as regulating interstate commerce. And that's why the regulation of firearms under the NFA has been sustained by courts as being within the federal government's power to tax; the regulation of firearms under the Gun Control Act has been sustained by courts as being within the federal government's power regulate interstate commerce; and the regulation of drugs under the Controlled Substances Act has been sustained as being within the federal government's power regulate interstate commerce.
The goal of the prohibitionists was to completely eliminate the manufacture, sale, importation or exportation of alcoholic beverages anywhere and everywhere in the United States. Nothing in the Constitution could support such a broad and plenary exercise of legislative authority by the federal government. So the Constitution had to be amended to allow that.
Why does the federal government need a Constitutional amendment to have the power to ban alcohol, but only needs to pass a law in order to ban "assault weapons?"
we need to be very careful with the word LAW. US CODE is nothing more than corporate policy of US inc. i did not get a paycheck from them so i am not an employee of US inc. same applies to you if you didn't get a paycheck.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.