Today in Supreme Court History: December 5, 1933

12/5/1933: The 21st Amendment is ratified.

Comments

[apedad]

Drink up boys!

Unless a state wishes to go dry which according to Section 2, is permissible.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some might be surprised to learn how much of America is still dry -- or partially dry (permitting possession but not sale, for example, or tolerating limited access to alcohol beverages).

Those sections tend to be poorly populated, in several important and regrettable respects.

[Frank Drackman]

Ah C'mon Jerry (man!) I thought you guys could get anything at
https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
and you're right those bitter Klingers in Alford, Chilmark, Dunstable, Gosnold, Hawley, Montgomery, Mount Washington, and Westhampton, Massachusetts need to get in the 21st Century!!!

Frank

[Dan Schiavetta]

There was a religious exemption, of course, due to factors that have been better expressed elsewhere.

"I had been told that neither smoking nor alcoholic beverages were allowed in the Royal Presence. As I was the host at luncheon I raised the matter at once, and said to the interpreter that if it was the religion of His Majesty to deprive himself of smoking and alcohol I must point out that my rule of life prescribed as an absolutely sacred rite smoking cigars and also the drinking of alcohol before, after, and if need be during all meals and in the intervals between them. The King graciously accepted the position. His own cup-bearer from Mecca offered me a glass of water from its sacred well, the most delicious I had ever tasted."

Churchill (and his "syndicate" of writers and researchers), Triumph and Tragedy, 1954, recounting his 1945 meeting with Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia. In the edition I have (the British edition, which Churchill considered to be the "definitive" edition), this is on page 348 - 349.

[F.D. Wolf]

The Eighteenth Amendment specifically references the prohibition of "intoxicating liquors...for beverage purposes", seemingly permitting them for other purposes such as industrial, "sacramental", or "medicinal" uses. And so the short-lived "medical liquor" movement was born.

In 1921, Congress passed the Supplemental Prohibition Act which banned all medicinal malt liquors (beer) and severely restricted prescriptions for medicinal wine or spirits. The "medicinal beer" ban was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court in James Everard's Breweries v. Day, 265 U.S. 545 (1924), as a proper exercise of Congress' powers under the Eighteenth Amendment. The restrictions on medicinal wine and spirts were also upheld by the Court, but in a 5-4 decision in Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581 (1926).

Justice Sutherland wrote the dissent, joined by Justices McReynolds, Butler, and Stone. He distinguished the earlier case, which the majority found dispositive. He accepted the Congressional findings that malt liquors had no medicinal value, but those same findings noted the dispute within the medical community over the medicinal value of wine and spirits. As such, Congress was regulating medical practice, a power reserved to the states.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I recently read a new historical novel by Andrea Barrett, "Natural History". Part of it is set during the beginning of Prohibition and mentions the various ways the protagonist's family of winemakers is planning on surviving. They decide to exploit a loophole by selling home winemaking kits by mail order.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Lopez v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 47 (decided December 5, 2006): felony under state law which is only a misdemeanor under federal law is not "a felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act" (18 U.S.C. §924(c)(2)) (here, abetting possession of cocaine) and therefore deportation is discretionary

Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U.S. 124 (decided December 5, 1995): order remanding after removal is not appealable (once it's out of federal court, it's gone) (wrinkle here was that remand was to bankruptcy court, not state court, but bankruptcy court had no choice but to remand further to state court)

Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment, 493 U.S. 120 (decided December 5, 1989): Rule 11 sanctions for a frivolous pleading are to be awarded against the attorney who signed it, not his law firm (Scalia cites text of Rule; in dissent Marshall emphasizes trial judge's right to control his courtroom, and that trial judge penalized both attorney and firm) (if you want to see an extreme example of Rule 11 "satellite litigation" during those mean years, check out Cooter & Gell v. Hartmax, 1990) (in 1996 or so my adversary once threatened me with a Rule 11 motion for proposing to ask the judge for permission to move for summary judgment)

[Frank Drackman]

I'll drink to that Amendment!

[bernard11]

Prohibition makes you want to cry into your beer and denies you the beer to cry into.

- Don Marquis

[apedad]

This was actually on this past weekend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjFyX2sSTGs

[F.D. Wolf]

Article V of the Constitution provides that an amendment proposed by Congress can be ratified by one of two methods: either a vote by three-quarters of the state legislatures or by three-quarters of state ratifying conventions. The choice of method is made by Congress. To date, the Twenty-First Amendment is the only amendment to be ratified by state conventions.

Congress chose that method, naturally, because it felt it would improve the amendment's chances of being ratified. While repeal of Prohibition was overwhelmingly popular in the country, the temperance lobby was still powerful in many quarters. The convention route relieved legislators from making a politically difficult vote, and a convention delegate, who does not have to worry about re-election, is generally much less susceptible to political pressure. There was very little actual debate in the vast majority of the state conventions, and the amendment was quickly passed unanimously or near-unanimously in most. (E.g., 99-1 in Michigan, 202-2 in New Jersey, 150-0 in New York.)

The Constitution says nothing about how delegates to the convention are to be selected, and states vary widely on the practice. In Vermont, for example, the governor, lieutenant governor, and speaker of the house compile a list of 28 citizens (who must agree to be on the ballot), two from each of Vermont's 14 counties, one who is declared "for" the amendment, and one "against". These 28 candidates with their declared positions appear on a statewide ballot. Each voter casts 14 votes, and the top 14 vote-getters become the delegates to the convention.

In Florida, by contrast, anyone can run to be a delegate, provided he pays the required fee and collects the requisite amount of signatures. A candidate can declare himself "for", "against", or "undecided" on the amendment. A statewide election is held, and the top 67 vote-getters become the delegates to the convention.

In New Mexico, on the other hand, the members of the state legislature are automatically the "delegates", so no election is needed.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks

[SMP0328]

In New Mexico, on the other hand, the members of the state legislature are automatically the “delegates”, so no election is needed.

That seems to violate Article V, because it moots Congress's choice. If Congress chooses the convention, then it has rejected ratification by the State legislatures. New Mexico is voiding that option by still having its legislature, under the guise of being a ratifying convention, decide whether to ratify the proposed amendment.