Peak Constitutional Amendment - XVIII

Posted On: Friday - May 22nd 2020 10:38AM MST
In Topics: 
  Liberty/Libertarianism  US Feral Government  Morning Constitutional

(Continued from Amendment XI, Amendment XII, Amendment XIII, Amendment XIV, Amendment XV, Part 1 on Amendment XVI, Part 2 on Amendment XVI , Part 3 on Amendment XVI, and Amendment XVII .)

The whole of it:
Section 1

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2

The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

I like that Section 3, BTW. Right into the amendment, a time limit was set for ratification. So, if the legislature of Tennessee, for example, was voting on Amendment XVIII, they would know that unless 75% of the States got on-board within 7 years, this was a no-go. (The "Equal Rights" proposed Amendment of the 1970s was given a 7 year deadline for ratification, but that was as specified by Congress, not in the short 3-section Amendment itself. It got ratified by 35 States - too bad, so sad ... whewwww!) There's also that 1 year delay for this amendment to take effect, even after full ratification. Both of these deals were new things to the amendment world.

There's one thing that I'll give the nation's political system credit for, back in 1919. Unlike with the "War on Drugs", the full process of amendment of the Constitution was undergone, rather than some "stroke of the pen, law of the land" bullshit. Why did it need to be? Oh, yeah, it was that pesky Amendment X of the Bill of Rights, I suppose. However, Amendment XVIII (or any other power grab amendments, for that matter) did not repeal Amendment X, so what gives?

As the Interpretation Page of our US Constitution go-to site notes, there was this big flurry of Amending, from 1913 to 1919*. The writers there differ from Peak Stupidity opinion on some of this, as we've discussed before, but I think that decade was a disaster for the future of America.

Surprisingly, former College Professor and Globalist President Woodrow Wilson, responsible for a lot of grief for America and the world, vetoed the Volstead Act, the Federal Bill that established the prohibition of alcohol, starting exactly on the day that Amendment XVIII allowed. That Volstead Act is the law known for creating all of the moonshiners, bootleggers, prohibition and Federal "revenuers" who sprung up due to the simple economic law of supply and demand. Organized crime may have been a smaller thing, just in places like NY City before this, due to large groups of unsavory immigrants, but it's the Volstead Act, and more fundamentally, Amendment XVIII which made the future Volstead Act Constitutional, that caused more widespread organized crime.

Besides organized crime, there was unorganized resistance to "Prohibition", as it was simply known. People wanted to drink, and un-like Delaware Destroyer George Thorogood, they didn't all want to drink alone**, or just with their Old Grand Dad, buddy Wiser, and friend Johnny Walker. You just don't prohibiting a (usually) minor vice and a big part of most of the world's culture willy-nilly.

If you read something about the long off-and-on campaigns against the demon alcohol, you will find that women were a large part of that movement. The story was that it was the domestic violence caused by drunkenness that was the big problem. Well, there are 2 sides to every story, and there's also often confusion between cause and effect. Is alcohol the drug that still causes the most misery to others? I can't argue for or against, but those who have just an occasional beer or drink one or two nights a week at a moderate level are no threat to anyone. That didn't seem to matter, as these women (and plenty of men) had a CAUSE.

Without knowing the time-line of the Constitutional Amendments, it'd be tempting to blame the 18th Amendment directly on the 19th. Yes, that's out of order though, and the guaranteed women's right to vote came a few years AFTER the prohibition of alcohol. However, Amendment 19, a fiasco soon to follow, was not about ALLOWING women to vote, but about REQUIRING the various States to ALLOW it. There were many States that already had no voting restrictions against women. This fact, and the fact that women could influence politics in various ways other than voting, was behind the long push for Amendment XVIII.

Anyway, this amendment was an extremely bad idea, both for its bad economic incentives and for its usurpation of new powers yet again for Fed-Gov. Our Founding Fathers would have been livid about any such thing. (A whiskey tax, just 5 years after the adoption of the Constitution, was bad enough.) They'd have been especially "triggered" by the latter aspect of this abomination along with the former - with their love of whiskey and beer***. none of the new Federal Government's fucking business. The learned Founding Fathers may have put this another way, of course ... say, " ... none of the new Federal Government's fvcking bvsiness".

Americans learned a lesson from the screw up of Amendment XVIII and the Volstead Act that implemented prohibition. Economic incentives and rebellion caused the increase in organized crime and other general lawlessness due to the people's wanting alcohol whether legal or not. "Ahaaa!", they said. "We can just repeal it." It was repealed with Amendment XXI in 1933, only 13 years after having taken effect in 1920. That was some mighty quick learning, legislating, and Constitutional amending, compared to the way things happen today.

Over the last 5-6 decades the screw-up that was prohibition of alcohol was repeated with "the pot" and other drugs. Same incentives for bootlegging, organized crime**** and that, same bootlegging and organized crime and that. This time, no amendment was ratified. America was apparently over all that by the 1970s and '80s.

As much as I am still an admirer of Ronald Reagan, his drug clampdown to me was one of the worst of his policies. The wife Nancy had her "Just Say No" campaign. That was just a voluntary, talk-to-the-school-kids sort of thing, but really, these unelected wives - or maybe a 1st man coming (is Stacey Abrams married? Either way, I think I'm gonna be sick...) should just bake cookies. The Hildabeast was wrong on that particular issue... along with everything else. The first wives really need to stand down on this sort of thing, going forward.

Along with having made no amendment of the Constitution to possible override Amendment X of the Bill of Rights, it took arguably 30 to 60 years to realize this same mistake repeated just a half-century later. At least we don't need to do all that hard work on an amendment to repeal anything.

Peak Stupidity gives big accolades to those American people and local politicians who made the effort to repeal Amendment XVIII. We need that same energy now to repeal a whole bunch of others, and we're not even done discussing them all here yet!

* 16 through 19, the last not covered by Peak Stupidity yet, allowed for a Federal Income tax, direct election of Senators, the prohibition of alcohol, and then made the allowance of women's voting by States mandatory. Grand fuck-ups, all of them, and too bad they weren't all repealed. There's no time limit on this Amending business, so ... you know ....

** "You know when I drink alone, I prefer to be by myself" When you first hear this part, it's a WTF moment, as in, "of course, if you're gonna drink alone, you HAVE TO be by yourself!" One can interpret that a different way, though. Hey, small quibble there, George - I'm still a fan.

*** According to the Spruce Eats blog, Mr. Franklin' quote regarding this matter was about wine, not beer:
Behold the rain which descends from heaven upon our vineyards, and which incorporates itself with the grapes to be changed into wine; a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy."

**** To a MUCH HIGHER level. Compare the days of Al Capone in Chicago to the power of the Mexican drug cartels. Holy Moley, they've got wars killing 50,000 people a year down there. Good thing that's only down in Mexico ... for now.

Saturday - May 23rd 2020 8:57PM MST
PS: Mr. Blanc, two comments on your comment.

One: I used to tell my ex-wife that if it weren't for men, women would still be living in caves without fire; if it weren't for women, men wouldn't even have gotten out of the trees, but we would have Pizza deliveries. But, perhaps comments like these are part of why she is my ex-wife.

Two: When I was a callow youth, I worked in the local hardware store. There were a couple of ladies of something close to that generation who came in once in a while. At least, they still wore veils and referred to themselves as 'Mrs. John' or 'Mrs. Paul'.

One of these ladies had a toaster that she brought in for repair a couple of times, that toasted bread on one side only, and did not have a timer or anything. She was fond of it because her husband had given it to her before he went off to the War (the Great one, presumably).

Well, one time (I don't remember the context) I mentioned something about male threads, and she said, "Why are they called male threads?" After some Hemming and Hawing, and a few euphemisms, I did manage to explain the difference between male and female threads. I am still not sure if I embarrassed her, or if she was having a little fun with me.
Saturday - May 23rd 2020 7:30PM MST
PS: Yep, Adam, I do know that the welfare clause is in there twice, but both as kind of introductory clauses. Were a Founding Father to be brought to 2020, or really just 1933, for that matter, with a time machine, he'd be kicking the hell out of himself for putting that in the document.

Thank you for the enlightenment on the idea of signing up for and SS#, voter's ID card, etc, meaning signing up for more than that.

We agree on the timeline of most the trashing of Amendment X. I never heard it referred to as "bankruptcy" before, but it you're no longer going to honor the deal to back up that green paper with the real stuff, that's pretty much what it is. From what I've read, not that much gold was recovered by FDR's minions. That's likely why, some decades ago, you'd occasionally find that some recently deceased guy's house had a stash in the walls or floorboards as the house was dismantled.

Have a good evening, Mr. Smith.

Saturday - May 23rd 2020 7:24PM MST
PS: Mr. Blanc, that was very interesting, that you experienced a view of the world from someone from the Victorian era in person. She didn't get out much to see the ghetto, or hang with pool-shooting drinking buddies and any of that kind of thing, so she would have a narrow point of view. I hope you can bring up some more stories from her if you can remember.

Your first paragraph is pretty much the way most people view it. Society had better remember who's boss though. American people have been slowly pushed into forgetting all this though the various waves of feminism. We are definitely the worse for that.

Thanks for the good comment.
Adam Smith
Saturday - May 23rd 2020 1:06PM MST
PS: Hello again Mr. Moderator...

The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause.

The Taxing and Spending Clause (which contains provisions known as the General Welfare Clause and the Uniformity Clause), Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, grants the feral government of the United States its power of taxation. While authorizing Congress to levy taxes, this clause permits the levying of taxes for two purposes only: to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Taken together, these purposes have traditionally been held to imply and to constitute the federal government's taxing and spending power.

The so called “Commerce Clause” refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution...

“To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”

You said, “I'm not sure I fully understand your linking the lack of identifying info., such as the SS# with the passing of this Amendment. “

I mentioned the birth certificate and ssn in response to this statement/question of yours...

"Unlike with the "War on Drugs", the full process of amendment of the Constitution was undergone, rather than some "stroke of the pen, law of the land" bullshit. Why did it need to be? Oh, yeah, it was that pesky Amendment X of the Bill of Rights, I suppose. However, Amendment XVIII (or any other power grab amendments, for that matter) did not repeal Amendment X, so what gives?"

While Amendment X has not yet been formally repealed, the war of northern aggression against the south and Amendment XIV did a whole lot of damage to it.

I only linked the ssn and birth certificate to the 18th because you noticed that they needed a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol but there is no such amendment for the prohibition of drugs. I think the reason they didn't need an amendment to prohibit drugs is because they had already convinced most people to waive their rights in a different fashion. This was done “voluntarily” by contract. While it is true they didn't disclose the terms or even the nature of these contracts, this is, in my opinion, how it was done.

I use the case involving the ladies from California as an example. I could use others, this one just popped into my head first.

On it's face it would seem that Raich and Monson could not possibly violate the “commerce clause” by growing cannabis for personal use. They didn't sell or traffic their cannabis or exchange it for federal reserve notes (that we know of) and (as far as we know) had no intention of doing so. They were not charged with trafficking or sale of cannabis. They were charged with “possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use” or “noncommercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal medical purposes” or some other such nonsense..

As you noticed there is no “prohibition of cannabis” amendment in the feral constitution or any state constitution. As far as I know there is no constitutional amendment prohibiting the cultivation of any plant. I can grow castor beans, poppies and oleander with impunity. Unless cannabis is the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" then there is nothing in the common law of the western world that could justify outlawing the cultivation of cannabis. (While this may seem absurd much of the law of the western world has it's roots in the big book of fiction, notably Deuteronomy and Leviticus.)

Why would it take a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol but not drugs?

If we are a free people then why can't we use drugs? Even the really dangerous ones?

How on earth did the two ladies from California become “subject to” the “commerce clause” of the feral constitution?

Because Raich and Monson “presumably” (and likely) have birth certificates and social security numbers they have been pledged as collateral for the debt. Because other nations buy U.S. treasuries this makes the debt “commerce with foreign nations”. Because plenty of U.S. citizens from among the several states buy U.S. treasuries this makes the debt “commerce among the several states”.

It is my understanding that the “birth certificate” and the “social security number” are not merely identifying info. Just as the “voter registration” is not merely a list of who can vote. These are contracts that contain undisclosed fine print whereby you waive certain rights in exchange for privileges or other benefits.

When one obtains a “birth certificate” they waive their right to be one of “the people” or a “free man” or a “free woman” in exchange for the privilege of being a citizen and the benefit of “government” protection.

When one obtains a “social security number” one waives their right to their own labor in exchange for the privilege of being a taxpayer who is “subject to” Title 26 of the U.S. code. They sweetened the deal with tax deductions and baby bonuses. I'd guess most taxpayers are enumerated at birth, or shortly there after, so their parents can enjoy the benefits of the deductions and the child tax credit. Without a social security number one would not be eligible for the helicopter money of the CARES act.

You said, “I think forcing the identifying info. of the Social Security number, never intended to be a national ID, per the words of known Socialist FDR, on Americans was a bad thing for many reasons. If you have time, explain a bit more on this, please.”

This all started with the Bankruptcy of the U.S. in 1933. It took only 20 years from the passage of the federal reserve act of 1913 to bankrupt the county. The “government” was hooked on that sweet debt and wanted more from the bankers. But they had no more gold to exchange for the debt based paper. To get more debt from the federal reserve the “government” pledged all the people and all their property as collateral. The real purpose of the ssn is to track the human resources that have been pledged as collateral for the glorious debt. They did it through trickery and deceit, but that's just how they roll.

I touched upon some of this a little in my comment to you under your post about the 14th amendment. The 14th inverted the relationship between the people and the “government”. It flipped the master/slave relationship.

However, it was really the federal reserve act and the bankruptcy of 1933 that did the most damage. When they confiscated the gold and silver “the people” could not pay their bills at law but were given the privilege of discharging them in equity. The implied contract “the people” agree to when discharging a debt with federal reserve notes instead of paying a bill at law coupled with the adhesion contracts that “the people” volunteered to be party to are the real reasons the constitution and the bill of rights seem so inaccessible to the average American. By removing the gold and silver as per article 1 section 10 they separated “the people” from “the law”.

This is how they turned a nation of free people into a nation of indebted serfs.

Sorry about the long winded rant. I hope I answered your questions.

I hope you have a wonderful day.
Saturday - May 23rd 2020 11:22AM MST
PS It is often said that women civilize men. Feminists hate this idea, but i think that there is something to it. Playing nice is beneficial for women, and women have some attributes that incentivize men to play nice. Permanent, socially enforced partnerships between men and women have taken us from being small bands roaming the primordial savannah to being the top species dominating the landscape across the entire world (except the poles). But when the partnerships get out of whack—in this case the feminine demand for playing nice trumps men’s desire to get things done—bad things happen. Prohibition was one of those things.

I have had an opportunity, which must by now be pretty rare, of having seen up close the sorts of people who made prohibition. My mother’s adoptive mother was a true Victorian (b. 1884). She was a member of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU). As she did a lot of child-minding for me in the 1950s, I wound up sitting in a lot of WCTU meetings when I was a kid. This were all decent women. All middle-classy, churchgoing, lodge-belonging ladies. The ring-leader was a registered nurse, so not without accomplishment. But their view of the world was a very narrow one, a very middle-classy, church-going, lodge-belonging view. They were in no position to know what sort of consequences would flow from their action. They didn’t consume alcohol and they couldn’t imagine that if they forced everyone everyone else to abstain that everyone else would become middle-classy, church-going, and lodge-belonging. My pretty clear impression is that this worldview is quite common, probably dominant, among women, especially among middle-classy and whatever the modern equivalent of church-going and lodge-belonging women are. Let women off the leash, and bad things are going to happen.
Saturday - May 23rd 2020 9:42AM MST
PS: Adam Smith, thanks first for the update about Stacey Abrams. She doesn't even have a baby Daddy? What gives? She is everything a man could want.. or something.

I'm not sure I fully understand your linking the lack of identifying info., such as the SS# with the passing of this Amendment. You bring up the "general welfare" clause (seen in the INTRODUCTION portions of the Constitution twice), and I think there is a big conflict between thinking this clause means a lot versus the clear language of Amendment X.

I think forcing the identifying info. of the Social Security number, never intended to be a national ID, per the words of known Socialist FDR, on Americans was a bad thing for many reasons. If you have time, explain a bit more on this, please.

I always appreciate your comments and corrections from anyone (unless they tell me the whole post is garbage - hopefully I won't get too much of that!)
Adam Smith
Saturday - May 23rd 2020 9:21AM MST
PS:Good Morning Mr. Moderator...

Stacey Abrams, unsurprisingly, has never been married.

"Unlike with the "War on Drugs", the full process of amendment of the Constitution was undergone, rather than some "stroke of the pen, law of the land" bullshit. Why did it need to be? Oh, yeah, it was that pesky Amendment X of the Bill of Rights, I suppose. However, Amendment XVIII (or any other power grab amendments, for that matter) did not repeal Amendment X, so what gives?"

It has absolutely nothing to do with Amendment X.

In 1919 people did not have social security numbers.
In 1919 most people didn't have birth certificates.

In 1919 "The People" had not yet contracted away their rights under common law in exchange for the privilege of being regulated under the commerce clause.

Here is a case of two women in California who were growing their own cannabis as medicine for personal use in compliance with California statute. They had no intention of selling their cannabis or otherwise dealing in "commerce".

The feral "government" declared this to be a "crime" in violation of the glorious commerce clause.

It is my opinion that if these two women did not have birth certificates, social security numbers or voter registrations they would not have been in violation of the federal commerce clause.

I am also of the opinion that the so called "birth certificate" or "certificate of live birth" and especially the "social security number" are in fact adhesion contracts that create a franchise. Partner.

The "application for voter registration" is another such contract. With this one they are honest bold enough to call it a franchise.

These contracts, like most "government" contracts reduce the number and quality of the "rights" you have available to you under the "law".

The US bankruptcy of 1933 substantially changed the nature of the feral beast, though I suppose that is a topic for another time, as it has nothing to do with the 18th.

Once again Mr. Moderator, I thank you for another wonderful, thoughtful, enjoyable article.

I hope you have a great day.

Saturday - May 23rd 2020 9:06AM MST
PS: Mr. Ganderson, what you bring up is a good subject for another post. I have read Steve Sailer and others on the point of the Drug War being a way to put away people who are the criminal element to begin with.

That's different from your point here. As for education, this is why it's so important for parents to pick schools to have influence on who their children's peers will be. Sure, they can teach those programs in school. (Man, I just remember some monsters from the films we saw in elementary school about not smoking - that's all I can remember! Hmmm, maybe it worked.) I think that's a good thing.

The biggest factor in whether your drugs will ruin your kids' lives are who he hangs out with. OTOH, my opinion is that there wouldn't be evil people pushing these substances on youngsters if there weren't so much money to be made.

We'll see how the pot thing goes, though. It's an ongoing experiment...

Saturday - May 23rd 2020 5:36AM MST
PS. I’m mixed on the drug war- even “harmless“ drugs like pot- I see it suck the life out of kids- not all, of course, but....

What I do know is we fight the drug war the way we fight all our wars- half assedly with insufficient force, and no really clear goals. Either send the 101st Airborne and the First Marine Division to Sinaloa, or give up, and use “shudder” education to keep the kids off the stuff.
Friday - May 22nd 2020 7:39PM MST
PS: I've made beer, Robert, but not starting with the whole mashing process, just the cooking/fermenting part. Some batches were good and some not. I've not tried wine. That sounds good - I'm not connoisseur - can't readily tell Lambrusco from a $200 bottle, as I've conversed with Mr. Blanc about.

Yeah, they repealed Amendment XVIII, but State laws (maybe some unConstitutional Fed ones too) made a mishmash that has caused the liquor industry to be nothing like a free market. Craft beer (don't know about wine) is something lots of people are into now. You'll still run into hassles if you try to sell it (over the table, that is).
Friday - May 22nd 2020 6:46PM MST
PS: The, to me, really surprising thing about this was that it was not until 1979 that making your own wine or beer at home became legal again. You could buy it if you paid the Taxes, but not make your own.

My Mother was making wine in the '60s, but that's the Irish for you.

P.S. It is really very easy. The only trick is to use real wine yeast (not hard to find online), not the stuff for bread which works but doesn't taste as good.

One gallon glass jug, well cleaned.
One large balloon with a few pin-holes in it.

About two and a half quarts of juice (start with grape, but not white grape).
About three cups of sugar.
One packet of yeast.

Mix ingredients in jug. Put balloon over mouth (of jug). You do not want to fill the jug, because sometimes you will get quite a mass of foam/bubbles.

Depending on temperature and juices used, wait two to six weeks. When it has stopped bubbling, and is mostly clear again, enjoy.

Much cheaper, and a lot of fun.

Experiment. Different juices, different amounts of sugar, different yeasts all make a difference.
WHAT SAY YOU? : (PLEASE NOTE: You must type capital PS as the 1st TWO characters in your comment body - for spam avoidance - or the comment will be lost!)