We have been covering the US Constitution line by line. When Republicans wave their paper props and parrot their vile machinations, we will be prepared to expose the lies. We have finished the main body of the Constitution. Now we continue with the Amendments. You can find the last article on the main body of the Constitution here. It has links to all the others. The text comes from The US Constitution. Previous articles in the Amendment series:
Article I
Articles II and III
Article IV
Article V
Article VI
Article VII
Article VIII
Articles IX and X
Articles XI and XII
Article XIII
Article XIV
Article XV
Article XVI
Article XVII
Article [XVIII]
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.
2: The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
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.
The Eighteenth Amendment provided for prohibition. It is not controversial in itself, because it has been repealed. However, it is still worthy of discussion because of what it illustrates.
The founding fathers were wise to include the establishment clause in the First Amendment. In spite of it, the religious right have tried to force their piety codes upon people who did not want them throughout our history. The Eighteenth Amendment demonstrates what happens when they are successful in those attempts. The effects were catastrophic. Prohibition brought organized crime out of the seedy ghettos and into the open. Gang bosses became celebrities. Lawless violence became rampant. Enforcement overwhelmed the criminal justice system.
This is relevant today, because government has outlawed drug use, and the war on drugs has brought many of the same problems. There were (and are) social ills associated with both alcohol and drugs, but in both cases, it is their misuse that causes the problems. Many drink, or use, responsibly. The way to deal with social ills is to provide social services. Some people abuse guns, but we don’t ban their responsible use. Some people drive aggressively and cause accidents, but we don’t ban cars.
Republicans argue that we should impose morality, and often use the illegality of murder for support. However good that might sound, there is a big difference. If I murder you, my action interferes with your rights. If I have a beer or smoke a joint, it does not. But Republicans argue that I may violate someone’s rights by my subsequent behavior, like drunk driving. If I do, restrict me as an individual, but not everyone.
For clarity, I neither drink nor use illegal drugs, and neither support nor advise their use. This is not a personal issue for me. The issue is the manner in which Republicans try to impose their will on those whose behavior they dislike.
19 Responses to “Constitutional Amendments: Article XVIII”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Whenever anything is outlawed it makes a new class of outlaws readyto supply the thing people want. Prohibition began an entire underground, untaxed black market economy same as the great “war on drugs.” This was so neo/theo con before the terms were ever even coined that what this amendment really is , is a harbinger of what happens when you preach freedom while restricting it.
Thank you for writing the summery far better than I did.
I don’t remember who first said, “You can’t legislate morality.” So true.
The war on drugs has produced the same symptoms as prohibition. Again, we do not learn from our past mistakes.
And Republicans are the least learned of all.
Sorry, you can’t legislate morality – just doesn’t work. And the war on drugs is a HUGE waste of money and resources; we should be using that money to rehab people, not to eradicate pot fields in Columbia. Total waste of time and money.
Exactly, Lisa. Not to mention that we are spending a fortune building prisoners wo warehouse drug offenders.
“If I murder you, my action interferes with your rights. If I have a beer or smoke a joint, it does not.”
Well said, and an important distinction. It’s also why I think it’s OK to legislate the use of certain products, in certain places, in certain ways. If you use a lawn pesticide in my neighbourhood and it makes me sick, you’ve interfered with my rights. If you smoke indoors and I have to breath your secondhand smoke, it interferes with my rights. These aren’t strictly moral distinctions but ones based on human health.
Thanks Benji. I agree. My rights end at the tip of your nose. Regilating vices is not the same as outlawing them.
I think of this amendment when I hear things like “war on drugs” or creating an amendment to define marriage… I am reminded by how this amendment was subsequently appealed because it was an utter failure. The only problem is that there will always be regressive right-wingers that wish to impose their ideas of morality on the rest of us. Our freedoms are constantly under assault from the super conservatives…
Well said, Kevin. That’s why we’re here.
Computer’s down, so I haven’t been able to follow you as often as I would have liked. I am glad you’re keeping these posts on file, because once I’m fully up again in about 2 weeks, I will go back to them and start res-sending this marvelous series to my friends. Kep up the great work, TomCat!
I read that at your place yesterday, Jack, and I’m so sorry to hear it. You are missed big time. When this is complete, I’m thinking of putting it all together as a PDF file.
When the Constitution is used to expand freedom, we all benefit. When it is used to taske away freedom, we all suffer.
I’d like to beat the simpletons who want a “marriage” Amendment with rolled-up Bibles.
JR, the Constition is not used to take aweay freedom. It is misused to take away freedom.
Like TC I don’t drink or smoke. I used to indeed. I never understood why the righties have to be in everybody’s life. These are the same people who want to get the Government out of theirs but they want to be in everybody else’s. A bit hypocritical don’t you think.
Tim, unfortunately I do smoke. It’s weed that I don’t smoke anymore.
I always thought those like the prohibitionists were motivated more by their need for control. Its one thing to regulate something like a herbicide or other product when it effects the public as a whole, but if a person uses something while separated from people (as in the safety of their own home) I have always felt they should be left alone.
That’s quite true< Beach. Control is what the Pharisees and Sadducees are are about, both those in Jesus' time, and those in the Republican party.