Why did the constitution need to be amended for feds to ban alcohol

[AVG-JOE]

Maybe better question - what was the outlook of the sociopolitical landscape that the temperance movement felt it necessary to take the approach of Constitutional Amendment rather than legislation?

Lot of futuristic and revolutionary ideas flailing about at the time...

^^ See above.

 

[heirtothewind]

My guess is that it ensured the constitutionality of the Volstead Act [1919].

 

[regent]

Since the sale and so forth of alcohol was a traditional state issue it took an amendment to the Constitution for it to apply to all the states.

 

[heirtothewind]

Since the sale and so forth of alcohol was a traditional state issue it took an amendment to the Constitution for it to apply to all the states.

True, but via the federal Volstead Act [passed in Oct. 1919]. The 18th Amendment became effective in Jan. 1920. As one member mentioned, this legislation was before the expanded interpretation of the Commerce Clause in Wickard v Filburn.

 

[Christophera]

Why did the constitution need to be amended for feds to ban alcohol

But other substances are still banned by the feds, for which no amendment needed to be passed?

An interesting subject that has lots of dynamics.

Most don't consider this, but women gaining the vote is primarily what caused prohibition. Sufferage and temperance were a part of the same gig for many righteous women for many years. Much to their credit.

Notice the "new renaissance" as it was called, "art nouveau" and music took another angle. Lots of creativity.

But the plotting of billionaires got congress to ignore 2/3 of the states applying for an Article V convention in 1911, then J.P. Morgan built a Titanic murder machine that sunk with 40 of the wealthiest Americans against America leaving the gold standard in 1912. Then, in 1913, the federal reserve act began that process.

Pretty much directly opposing it were the women with their newly gained vote. They couldn't' do anything about the federal reserve, but they did manage to keep those men from getting trashed every day, failing to make it to work, ending up in jail and fighting drunk in the streets outside of bars. At least for a few years.

Then prohibition ended and the men fell off the wagon so bad welfare had to be created, then it was noticed they were using the welfare money to buy booze, so child support was created if women could get the man out of the house. Who needs them for child rearing, you got a friggin TV.

Right, and hemp that was providing 70% of the products used by humanity for 5,000 years was banned. What winners we are (not). I do prefer a nylon rope to a hemp rope, but thats about where the preferences stop.

Having lost about 60 friends to alcohol in 20 years. Dead from liver failure most of them, some vehicle accidents or suicide, I really think either prohibition could return, or massive education in what life is really about rather that the extensive misleading that media provides to people growing up.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Quite simply--- because at the time the amendment was passed no one had the audacity to suggest that the commerce clause could be employed for anything other than regulating interstate commerce.