Supports The Constitution
I'm reading around the 'net and people touting various candidates say their candidate supports the Constitution. OK. It is good PR. But there is a test. Say to them:
"I never noticed a Prohibition Amendment. Except for Alcohol."
So when a candidate supporter says "my candidate supports the Constitution" check them on it. Ask: "Where is the Drug Prohibition Amendment?"
Funny thing is that a Classical Values commenter in decrying my effort to elevate the Drug Prohibition issue stated the Tea Party Manifesto which is (approximately):
So my friend. Where is the Drug Prohibition Amendment? If we don't have one then the Federal Government's institution of such a program is a usurpation of power. Funny how few notice these things.
Cross Posted at Classical Values
Posts
4 comments:
That power stems from the Commerce Clause, natch. The Volstead Act required an Amendment, becuase prior to the 1930's, the Commerce Clause was not regarded as enabling the U.S. to prohibit or strictly control interstate commerce. After the "switch in time to save nine" and the New Deal regulations, the Commerce Clause was re-defined to cover such things. Put another way, it's an outgrowth of the FDA's power to determine what risks individuals are allowed to take with prescription medicine.
The courts would have to roll back the Commerce Clause an awfully long way to make drug prohibition unconstitutional. Could happen, but it would take a sustained effort over a generation or two.
Hmmm, W/V = "mosessa". Is the Google w/v predicting another 40 years in the desert before reaching the prohibition-free promised land?
Neil,
Quite correct. However, my purpose is to light a fire under the TEAs (almost sounds like the title of a Russ Meyers flick).
Sorry--didn't mean to step on a good polemic. ;)
Comments always welcome. They help clarify.
Post a Comment