Talk:Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 1

Vandalism
Why is this page vandalized so much - quite random I think... Butnotthehippo 22:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Because people are bored. Astrastarr 02:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Congressional Vote
I am curious about the Congressional vote sending the matter to the state conventions. I'll update the article on the vote totals, but I am interested in what the votes were by party. I gather that the Democrats had swung from dry in 1920 to wet in 1933, but the same isn't true of the Republicans, but the article would benefit from more specifics. Also would be interesting to see where the different regions lay on the issue. Boris B 05:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Votes by state
I notice some states are not listed as either ratifying or rejecting the amendment. Is this an oversight, or is there some other explanation? Can this be clarified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.132.137 (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A state wouldn't be on either list if it took no action concerning the amendment. Once the requisite number of states had ratified it, no further activity was necessary.  It's possible that no convention was ever seated in some states.  Schoop (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ratification speed
This was the most quickly ratified amendment, so would anyone have an objection to the addition of this fact? I don't think any other amendment was ratified in less than a year. Tealwisp (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Untitled
Can someone explain why the image from the National Archives shows the ratification occurring in the year "one thousand nine hundred and thirty-two" as opposed to 1933? :)

it would be nice to have some explanation as to motivation behind passing this amendment. I'm sure there must have been lots of debates... Funkyj 19:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the second article of the amendment is very confusing. Could someone with a legal background please interpret it? It seems to say that importing alcohol is prohibited, but that doesn't make much sense...

"In violation thereof" It seems to say that it is still illegal to violate state and local laws.24.151.41.235 20:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

When did enough states vote upon the amendment to officially end prohibition?

When Utah ratified the 21st amendment on December 5th, 1933 they were the 36th state out of the existing 48 (therefore, completing the 75% of states required to ratify)to do so. The 21st amendment became the law of the land that day.CrashRiley (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Second Article
Sorry - I don't understand why this article states that article two bans the importation of alcohol when it clearly does not. It seems rather blatant that it removes prohibition which is in line with the entire purpose of the amendment Jv403 10:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Translation. The second clause means that you can't smuggle liquor into a state (eg Montana), territory(eg Guam) or possession (eg Virgin Islands) if it is against the laws there (in other words, "in violation of the laws thereof"). You can still own liquor, you just can't smuggle it illegally. --Kevin (TALK) 02:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Bingo! And without this article, the states may not have the power to ban imports from another state (interstate commerce). Schoop (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't treason a third way for a private citizen to violate the constitution?

HOPE THIS HELPS: I hope my expansion of the section regarding Court Rulings helps clarify some of this. Until a few years ago, most Supreme Court opinions were in general agreement in that Section 2 gave the states a "special exception" to the Dormant Commerce Clause--as it relates to alcoholic beverages. I'll try to explain it a nutshell: the Constitution is sort of like a list of special "permission slips" for the government. A branch of federal government cannot do something unless that particular branch has already been given permission from the states to do so. And if neither one of the three branches have permission to do something, that means that it is a power still reserved to the states (called "police powers"). It might be helpful to think of every state before ratifying the Constitution, was essentially is own little nation, with the power to do whatever it wanted within its own territory. After agreeing to the Constitution, each state has the power to do whatever it wants minus those powers listed for each specific permission slip. The Commerce Clause is the clause that grants Congress permission to regulate interstate commerce--anything affecting the movement of commercial goods and services between the states. It is hands-down Congress' most significant power (it is used as the basis for just about every law passed). The Dormant Commerce Clause is not actually listed anywhere in the Constitution. Its actually implied under the Commerce Clause because states "gave up" that power to Congress. As a result, this means that a state cannot just "take it back" whenever it wants. States try to get away with this all the time, because its only natural for politicians to want pass laws that favor their constituents. In other words, laws that favor in-state business or place extra burdens on out-of-staters who want to take advantage of something inside another state (use of state highways, for example). The Dormant Commerce Clause says this a a no-no. In general, states cannot do anything that directly or indirectly burdens interstate commerce. Like everything else in life, there are exceptions to the rule (none of which really matter here). However, until a few years ago, many people (including the U.S. Supreme Court it seemed) interpreted Section 2 of the 21st Amendment as being one of these particular exceptions to the rule. In fact, some earlier Supreme Court Cases seemed to possibly suggest that it was an exception to anything else in the Constitution that preceded it. Taking that theory to the extreme, a state could pass laws discriminated the sale sale of alcohol on the basis of race or religion. For example, a law might say "no alcoholic beverages imported into this state can be sold to Native Americans or Baptists," and it would be 100% legal. Obviously, the Supreme Court began to fall back on that idea over the years until the only exception left that everyone could seem to agree on (or so they thought) was the Dormant Commerce Clause. And then, in 2005, the Supreme Court basically said "nevermind, we never actually said this was an exception to the Dormant Commerce Clause. Section 2 just says a state may have regulatory control over alcoholic drinks that are imported to be sold inside that state." What the heck does that mean exactly? A state can set limits on the percentage alcohol content in beer or wine. It can also prohibit alcohol sale at certain times such as anytime after 2:00 am or anytime on Sundays or holidays, for example. In my own personal opinion, that is a pretty weak argument because the states could have made those types of laws under the general police powers they already had to begin with. What was the point of including it, if not to acknowledge something that wasn't there before? But, that's just my little opinion. It is not the current opinion of the Supreme Court, which means its not the current law of the land... --ClemsonChuck (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Blaine Act
It's also named the Blaine Act.

Date of amendment
Perhaps I don't understand how implementation of constitutional amendments works in the US, but the amendment is dated December 5, 1932, yet all these dates say 1933. Why? 66.184.16.58 (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Text Section
A Background is nice, but to have a more consistent format to the Amendments preceding and succeeding this Amendment, this wikipedia page should have the actual Text of the Amendment. 143.232.210.150 (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was blanked by a vandal earlier in the month, and not reverted properly. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Private Unconstitutionality
From the article:

The Eighteenth Amendment is also one of only two operative provisions of the Constitution which prohibit private conduct; the other is the Thirteenth Amendment. As Laurence Tribe points out: "there are two ways, and only two ways, in which an ordinary private citizen ... can violate the United States Constitution. One is to enslave someone, a suitably hellish act. The other is to bring a bottle of beer, wine, or bourbon into a State in violation of its beverage control laws—an act that might have been thought juvenile, and perhaps even lawless, but unconstitutional?"

Maybe I'm just tired, but shouldn't that read "The Twenty-first Amendments is also...?" ~ Amory (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This paragraph does seem a bit confusing. I just now looked at it, saw the current version which starts with &ldquo;The Twenty-first Amendment is also one of only two operative provisions of the Constitution that prohibit private conduct&hellip;&rdquo;, and was just about to edit it to say the Eighteenth Amendment, when I realized that perhaps I was getting confused.  The key word is &ldquo;operative&rdquo;.  The Eighteenth Amendment prohibited private conduct, but it is no longer operative, due to the passage of the Twenty-First Amendment.  The Twenty-First Amendment's primary purpose and effect was to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment, and it is considerably less obvious that it also contains provisions which prohibit private conduct, albeit less strictly than did the Eighteenth Amendment which it superseded.   It seems to me that this paragraph makes a worthwhile point, but it is rather confusing.  Perhaps someone can think of a better way to rewrite it? &mdash; Bob Blaylock (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Four Methods to Amend Constitution
In the second sentence of the paragraph following the Rockefeller quote, the entry states, " Although the US Constitution provides two methods for ratifying constitutional amendments..." Since Article V actually provides for a total of four methods of amending the constitution, perhaps it would provide more information to say something like "Although Article V of the US Constitution provides for four methods of amending the constitution, only one had been used before then." The four methods are:
 * 1) Proposed by 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress and it is ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures;
 * 2) Proposed by 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress and ratified by constitutional conventions in 3/4 of states;
 * 3) 2/3 of states call for constitutional convention to propose amendment and it is ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures; and
 * 4) 2/3 of states call for constitutional convention to propose amendment and results are ratified by constitutional conventions held in 3/4 of states.

This is the way amending the constitution is described in Epstein, Lee and Thomas G. Walker (2007), Rights, Liberties, and Justice (6th Edition). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

The article is technically accurate, so maybe the author left it this way for simplicity. Maybe this kind of edit would be better suited for the Article Five of the United States Constitution page. Any thoughts? Reltm (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it should say, "...two methods for ratifying proposed constitutional amendments..." Constitutionalist4 (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Date of Official Implementation
Aside from Rachel Maddow's assertion that repeal did not actually go in to effect until December 15th, 1933, I find no official record of this being fact. Contemporary news sources make no mention of this fact, nor does the official proclamation by Acting Secretary of State Phillips (48 Stat. 1749). A few other websites assert this date as "a little known fact" but none offer any evidence of this. Perhaps Ms. Maddow can clear this up? I find the video citation does not prove anything other than the fact that people began drinking on December 5th, as other contemporary news sources also confirm (including the New York Times). The sentence stating that repeal officially went in to effect on December 15th should be removed precluding a more credible citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteinwayPianoman (talk • contribs) 02:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)