Page 1 of 1 [ 15 posts ] 

pawelk1986
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,788
Location: Wroclaw, Poland

11 Sep 2014, 7:28 pm

I recently watched tv documentary about raise and fall of prohibition.

Apparently some Americans opposed to repealing infamous 18 amendment, not because they think prohibition is good, but because they feared that repealing amendment to American Constitution create bad precedent, i just wondering what is bad in annulling faulty law?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,777
Location: temperate zone

11 Sep 2014, 8:14 pm

Constitutional Amendments are more than just garden variety statutes. They part of the constitution- part of the foundation of the laws of the land. So youre NOT supposed to take them lightly and mess around with them at every whim- like youre not supposed to impeach every president whom you dont like.

So I suppose that was the reasoning behind the opinion of those folks. But the nation and the Constitution survived the repeal of Prohibition.



Last edited by naturalplastic on 12 Sep 2014, 4:56 am, edited 2 times in total.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,989
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

11 Sep 2014, 8:21 pm

You could say that it could potentially set a precedence and I tend to agree.
On the other hand, the 18th was against the spirit of the bill of rights in the first place. The only people that would want to keep prohibition are bible thumpers and health nazis.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,325
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

11 Sep 2014, 8:56 pm

Raptor wrote:
You could say that it could potentially set a precedence and I tend to agree.
On the other hand, the 18th was against the spirit of the bill of rights in the first place. The only people that would want to keep prohibition are bible thumpers and health nazis.


There must be a blue moon, as I'm in agreement with you about the types who wanted to keep prohibition. :lol:


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Verax
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2014
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 79

12 Sep 2014, 12:06 pm

Pitty your government doesn't seem to follow the rest of the amendments much. Certainly when it comes to dealing with others in the world, even your most loyal allies.



SignOfLazarus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2014
Age: 953
Gender: Female
Posts: 540

12 Sep 2014, 12:36 pm

Verax wrote:
Pitty your government doesn't seem to follow the rest of the amendments much. Certainly when it comes to dealing with others in the world, even your most loyal allies.


And... this contributes to the thread, how?


_________________
I don't know about other people, but when I wake up in the morning and put my shoes on, I think, "Jesus Christ, now what?"
-C. Bukowski


ZenDen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2013
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,747
Location: On top of the world

12 Sep 2014, 12:59 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Raptor wrote:
You could say that it could potentially set a precedence and I tend to agree.
On the other hand, the 18th was against the spirit of the bill of rights in the first place. The only people that would want to keep prohibition are bible thumpers and health nazis.


There must be a blue moon, as I'm in agreement with you about the types who wanted to keep prohibition. :lol:


Actually all of the criminal element and public that depended on illegal hooch and the associated bribery and ETC., and the politicians that got fat on illegal money were in favor of and promoted Prohibition. These same criminal politicians were probably the ones trying to frighten people with the "precedence" phrase.



Danimal
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 276
Location: West Central Indiana

13 Sep 2014, 1:54 am

The film maker Ken Burns created an excellent documentary about the 18th Amendment and the Prohibition years.
First of all, it isn't easy to add an amendment to the US Constitution. A proposed amendment must be passed by a 75% vote in both houses of Congress. The amendment then goes to the states for ratification. When 75% of the states ratify the proposed amendment, it officially becomes part of the Constitution.
I agree that Prohibition was a bad idea. However, that was a different time under different circumstances. Alcoholism was a serious public health crisis at the beginning of the 20th century. Workers were often intoxicated at work at a time when basic safety standards didn't exist. Industrial accidents killed and maimed workers at a time when workers compensation was nonexistent. Prohibition was a desperate attempt to end the destruction caused by alcohol. By no means was it a law forced upon the United States by evangelicals and teetotalers.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,325
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Sep 2014, 2:22 am

Danimal wrote:
The film maker Ken Burns created an excellent documentary about the 18th Amendment and the Prohibition years.
First of all, it isn't easy to add an amendment to the US Constitution. A proposed amendment must be passed by a 75% vote in both houses of Congress. The amendment then goes to the states for ratification. When 75% of the states ratify the proposed amendment, it officially becomes part of the Constitution.
I agree that Prohibition was a bad idea. However, that was a different time under different circumstances. Alcoholism was a serious public health crisis at the beginning of the 20th century. Workers were often intoxicated at work at a time when basic safety standards didn't exist. Industrial accidents killed and maimed workers at a time when workers compensation was nonexistent. Prohibition was a desperate attempt to end the destruction caused by alcohol. By no means was it a law forced upon the United States by evangelicals and teetotalers.


To be sure, a big part of prohibition had grown out of so called medicines that were mostly alcohol, and which caused children to literally become alcoholics. Such abuses of alcohol had played a major role in the rise of prohibition, though at the end when such spurious medications based on alcohol had been eradicated, it was primarily fundies, teetotalers, and Al Capone and company who opposed legalization of alcohol.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Hi_Im_B0B
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2014
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 193

13 Sep 2014, 3:51 pm

it was the only amendment that was prohibitory in nature, restricting rights rather than expanding them. like the OP said, faulty law; nothing at all wrong with repealing it.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,262
Location: London

13 Sep 2014, 4:15 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
To be sure, a big part of prohibition had grown out of so called medicines that were mostly alcohol, and which caused children to literally become alcoholics. Such abuses of alcohol had played a major role in the rise of prohibition, though at the end when such spurious medications based on alcohol had been eradicated, it was primarily fundies, teetotalers, and Al Capone and company who opposed legalization of alcohol.


Also a big part was also based on hysteria.

A good example of an a Act based on hysteria was the Garotters' Act of 1863.

A agree the temperance moment did come out of Christian group, but it was a different group of fundies than the current bible belt, a different brand of Christianity.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,325
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

13 Sep 2014, 4:48 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
To be sure, a big part of prohibition had grown out of so called medicines that were mostly alcohol, and which caused children to literally become alcoholics. Such abuses of alcohol had played a major role in the rise of prohibition, though at the end when such spurious medications based on alcohol had been eradicated, it was primarily fundies, teetotalers, and Al Capone and company who opposed legalization of alcohol.


Also a big part was also based on hysteria.

A good example of an a Act based on hysteria was the Garotters' Act of 1863.

A agree the temperance moment did come out of Christian group, but it was a different group of fundies than the current bible belt, a different brand of Christianity.


That is absolutely true.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,262
Location: London

13 Sep 2014, 5:47 pm

Weird, I had no idea this fountain nr where I grew up in London was originally a temperance fountain

Image

I mean it was not anything you would actually drink from, but I know it.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,262
Location: London

13 Sep 2014, 5:52 pm

Now that I look at it, seems bloody obvious
Image


It is actually not far from the church of William Wilberforce the key figure of the Abolitionist (slavery) movement.



Fogman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,268
Location: Frå Nord Dakota til Vermont

13 Sep 2014, 7:04 pm

pawelk1986 wrote:
I recently watched tv documentary about raise and fall of prohibition.

Apparently some Americans opposed to repealing infamous 18 amendment, not because they think prohibition is good, but because they feared that repealing amendment to American Constitution create bad precedent, i just wondering what is bad in annulling faulty law?


I'm sure that a once little known group of Italian immigrants and their hang-ons were dead set against the repeal of the 18th amendment as running and selling liquor brought them great profits as well as household name notoriety. -- They would have continued to make money selling and running liquor.

There is nothing bad at all with annulling or otherwise repealing bad laws.


_________________
When There's No There to get to, I'm so There!