Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution

Last updated

The Twenty-first Amendment in the National Archives 21st Amendment Pg1of1 AC.jpg
The Twenty-first Amendment in the National Archives

The Twenty-first Amendment (Amendment XXI) to the United States Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which had mandated nationwide prohibition on alcohol. The Twenty-first Amendment was proposed by the 72nd Congress on February 20, 1933, and was ratified by the requisite number of states on December 5, 1933. It is unique among the 27 amendments of the U.S. Constitution for being the only one to repeal a prior amendment, as well as being the only amendment to have been ratified by state ratifying conventions.

Contents

The Eighteenth Amendment was ratified on January 16, 1919 after years of advocacy by the temperance movement. The subsequent enactment of the Volstead Act established federal enforcement of the nationwide prohibition on alcohol. As many Americans continued to drink despite the amendment, Prohibition gave rise to a profitable black market for alcohol, fueling the rise of organized crime. Throughout the 1920s, Americans increasingly came to see Prohibition as unenforceable, and a movement to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment grew until the Twenty-first Amendment was ratified in 1933.

Section 1 of the Twenty-first Amendment expressly repeals the Eighteenth Amendment. Section 2 bans the importation of alcohol into states and territories that have laws prohibiting the importation or consumption of alcohol. Several states continued to be "dry states" in the years after the repealing of the Eighteenth Amendment. Nonetheless, several states continue to closely regulate the distribution of alcohol. Many states delegate their power to ban the importation of alcohol to counties and municipalities, and there are numerous dry communities throughout the United States. Section 2 has occasionally arisen as an issue in Supreme Court cases that touch on the Commerce Clause.

Text

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

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.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Background

The Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution had ushered in a period known as Prohibition, during which the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages was illegal. The enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment in 1919 was the crowning achievement of the temperance movement, but it soon proved highly unpopular. Crime rates soared under Prohibition as gangsters, such as Chicago's Al Capone, became rich from a profitable, often violent, black market for alcohol. The federal government was incapable of stemming the tide: enforcement of the Volstead Act proved to be a nearly impossible task and corruption was rife among law enforcement agencies. [1] In 1932, wealthy industrialist John D. Rockefeller Jr. stated in a letter:

When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before. [2]

As more and more Americans opposed the Eighteenth Amendment, a political movement grew for its repeal. However, repeal was complicated by grassroots politics. Although the U.S. Constitution provides two methods for ratifying constitutional amendments, [3] only one method had been used up until that time: ratification by the state legislatures of three-fourths of the states. However, the wisdom of the day was that the lawmakers of many states were either beholden to or simply fearful of the temperance lobby.[ citation needed ]

Proposal and ratification

The Congress adopted the Blaine Act, which proposed the Twenty-first Amendment, on February 20, 1933. [4] [5]

The proposed amendment was adopted on December 5, 1933. It is the only amendment to have been ratified by state ratifying conventions, specifically selected for the purpose. [6]

The Twenty-first Amendment ending national prohibition also became effective on December 5, 1933. The Acting Secretary of State William Phillips certified the amendment as having been passed by the required three-fourths of the states at 5:49 p.m. EST, just 17 minutes after the passage of the amendment by the Utah convention. [7] [8] President Roosevelt then issued a proclamation following the passage and certification of the amendment which stated in part the following: "I trust in the good sense of the American people that they will not bring upon themselves the curse of excessive use of intoxicating liquors to the detriment of health, morals and social integrity. The objective we seek through a national policy is the education of every citizen towards a greater temperance throughout the nation." [9] [10] The end of prohibition was thought to be responsible for the creation of a half million jobs. [11]

The various responses of the 48 states is as follows: [12] [13]

The following states ratified the amendment:

  1. Michigan: April 10, 1933 (99–1) [14]
  2. Wisconsin: April 25, 1933 (15–0) [15]
  3. Rhode Island: May 8, 1933 (31–0) [16]
  4. Wyoming: May 25, 1933 (65–0) [17]
  5. New Jersey: June 1, 1933 (202–2) [18]
  6. Delaware: June 24, 1933 (17–0) [15]
  7. Indiana: June 26, 1933 (246–83) [19]
  8. Massachusetts: June 26, 1933 (45–0) [20]
  9. New York: June 27, 1933 (150–0) [21]
  10. Illinois: July 10, 1933 (50–0) [22]
  11. Iowa: July 10, 1933 (90–0) [lower-alpha 1] [23]
  12. Connecticut: July 11, 1933 (50–0) [24]
  13. New Hampshire: July 11, 1933
  14. California: July 24, 1933
  15. West Virginia: July 25, 1933
  16. Arkansas: August 1, 1933
  17. Oregon: August 7, 1933
  18. Alabama: August 8, 1933
  19. Tennessee: August 11, 1933
  20. Missouri: August 29, 1933
  21. Arizona: September 5, 1933
  22. Nevada: September 5, 1933
  23. Vermont: September 23, 1933
  24. Colorado: September 26, 1933
  25. Washington: October 3, 1933
  26. Minnesota: October 10, 1933
  27. Idaho: October 17, 1933
  28. Maryland: October 18, 1933
  29. Virginia: October 25, 1933
  30. New Mexico: November 2, 1933
  31. Florida: November 14, 1933
  32. Texas: November 24, 1933
  33. Kentucky: November 27, 1933
  34. Ohio: December 5, 1933
  35. Pennsylvania: December 5, 1933
  36. Utah: December 5, 1933 (20–0) [25]

The amendment was officially added to the U.S. Constitution on December 5, 1933, when Utah's state convention unanimously ratified the amendment. [25] [7] [8]

The amendment was subsequently ratified by conventions in the following states:

  1. Maine: December 6, 1933 (72–0) [lower-alpha 2] [26]
  2. Montana: August 6, 1934 (45–4) [27]

The amendment was unanimously rejected by South Carolina's state convention on December 4, 1933. [28] On November 7, 1933, North Carolina held a vote, and approximately 70% of its voters rejected holding a convention to consider the amendment. [29]

Implementation

State and local control

Mississippi was the last state to remain entirely dry. In August 1966, 19 of Mississippi's counties voted to legalize alcohol. [lower-alpha 3] [30] [31] Kansas continued to prohibit public bars until 1987. [32] Many states now delegate the authority over alcohol granted to them by this Amendment to their municipalities or counties (or both).[ citation needed ]

Court rulings

Early rulings suggested that Section 2 enabled states to legislate with exceptionally broad constitutional powers. In State Board of Equalization v. Young's Market Co., the Supreme Court recognized that "Prior to the Twenty-first Amendment it would obviously have been unconstitutional" [33] for a state to require a license and fee to import beer anywhere within its borders. First, the Court held that Section 2 abrogated the right to import intoxicating liquors free of a direct burden on interstate commerce, which otherwise would have been unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause before passage of the Twenty-first Amendment. [34] In its second holding, the Court rejected an equal protection claim because "A classification recognized by the Twenty-first Amendment cannot be deemed forbidden by the Fourteenth." [34]

In Craig v. Boren (1976), the Supreme Court found that analysis under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had not been affected by the passage of the Twenty-first Amendment. Although the Court did not specify whether the Twenty-first Amendment could provide an exception to any other constitutional protections outside of the Commerce Clause, it acknowledged "the relevance of the Twenty-first Amendment to other constitutional provisions becomes increasingly doubtful". [35] Likewise, it has been held that Section 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment does not affect the Supremacy Clause [36] or the Establishment Clause. [37] However, the Craig v. Boren Court did distinguish two characteristics of state laws permitted by the Amendment, which otherwise might have run afoul of the Constitution. The constitutional issues in each centered or touched upon: (1) "importation of intoxicants, a regulatory area where the State's authority under the Twenty-first Amendment is transparently clear"; [38] and (2) "purely economic matters that traditionally merit only the mildest review under the Fourteenth Amendment". [39] As to the Dormant Commerce Clause in particular, the Court clarified that, while not a pro tanto repeal, the Twenty-First Amendment nonetheless "primarily created an exception to the normal operation of the Commerce Clause". [40]

In South Dakota v. Dole (1987), the Supreme Court upheld the withholding of some federal highway funds [41] to South Dakota, because beer with an alcohol content below a specified percentage could be lawfully sold to adults under the age of 21 within the state. [42] In a 7–2 majority opinion by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Court held that the offer of benefits is not coercion that inappropriately invades state sovereignty. [43] The Twenty-first Amendment could not constitute an "independent constitutional bar" to the spending power granted to Congress under Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution. [44] Justice Brennan, author of the majority opinion in Craig v. Boren , provided a brief but notable dissent based solely on Section 2. [45] Justice O'Connor also dissented, arguing that "the regulation of the age of the purchasers of liquor, just as the regulation of the price at which liquor may be sold, falls squarely within the scope of those powers reserved to the States by the Twenty-first Amendment." [46]

In 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996), the Court held states cannot use the Twenty-first Amendment to abridge freedom of speech protections under the First Amendment. [47] Rhode Island imposed a law that prohibited advertisements disclosing the retail prices of alcoholic beverages sold to the public. In declaring the law unconstitutional, the Court reiterated that "although the Twenty-first Amendment limits the effect of the Dormant Commerce Clause on a State's regulatory power over the delivery or use of intoxicating beverages within its borders, the Amendment does not license the States to ignore their obligations under other provisions of the Constitution". [48]

Most recently, however, Granholm v. Heald (2005) held that the Twenty-first Amendment does not overrule the Dormant Commerce Clause with respect to alcohol sales, and therefore states must treat in-state and out-of-state wineries equally. The Court criticized its earliest rulings on the issue, (including State Board of Equalization v. Young's Market Co.) and promulgated its most limited interpretation to date:

The aim of the Twenty-first Amendment was to allow States to maintain an effective and uniform system for controlling liquor by regulating its transportation, importation, and use. The Amendment did not give States the authority to pass nonuniform laws in order to discriminate against out-of-state goods, a privilege they had not enjoyed at any earlier time. [49]

In a lengthy dissent, Justice Thomas argued that the plain meaning of Section 2 removed "any doubt regarding its broad scope, the Amendment simplified the language of the Webb–Kenyon Act and made it clear that States could regulate importation destined for in-state delivery free of negative Commerce Clause restraints". [50]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ In Iowa, 8 county delegates were absent during the vote, and 1 county delegate died before the convention.
  2. ↑ In Maine, 8 state delegates were absent during the vote. [26]
  3. ↑ In August 1966, Mississippi's Attala, Jefferson Davis, Lincoln, and Pike counties voted against legalizing alcohol. All other Mississippi counties voted in favor of legalizing alcohol. [30]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prohibition</span> Outlawing of alcohol

Prohibition is the act or practice of forbidding something by law; more particularly the term refers to the banning of the manufacture, storage, transportation, sale, possession, and consumption of alcoholic beverages. The word is also used to refer to a period of time during which such bans are enforced.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of the United States</span> Supreme law of the United States since 1789

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States. It superseded the Articles of Confederation, the nation's first constitution, on March 4, 1789. Originally including seven articles, the Constitution delineates the national frame and constrains the powers of the federal government. The Constitution's first three articles embody the doctrine of the separation of powers, in which the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress ; the executive, consisting of the president and subordinate officers ; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Article IV, Article V, and Article VI embody concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments, the states in relationship to the federal government, and the shared process of constitutional amendment. Article VII establishes the procedure subsequently used by the 13 states to ratify it. The Constitution of the United States is the oldest and longest-standing written and codified national constitution in force in the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article Five of the United States Constitution</span> Description of amendment procedure

Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the procedure for altering the Constitution. Under Article Five, the process to alter the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments, and subsequent ratification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1919 amendment establishing prohibition of alcohol

The Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution established the prohibition of alcohol in the United States. The amendment was proposed by Congress on December 18, 1917, and ratified by the requisite number of states on January 16, 1919. The Eighteenth Amendment was repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment on December 5, 1933—it is the only constitutional amendment in American history to be repealed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Volstead Act</span> 1919 US law initiating the prohibition of alcoholic beverages

The National Prohibition Act, known informally as the Volstead Act, was an act of the 66th United States Congress designed to execute the 18th Amendment which established the prohibition of alcoholic drinks. The Anti-Saloon League's Wayne Wheeler conceived and drafted the bill, which was named after Andrew Volstead, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who managed the legislation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Blaine Act</span> 1933 U.S. Congress joint resolution to repeal the 18th Amendment and end Prohibition

The Blaine Act, formally titled Joint Resolution Proposing the Twenty-First Amendment to the United States Constitution, is a joint resolution adopted by the United States Congress on February 20, 1933, initiating repeal of the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which established Prohibition in the United States. Repeal was finalized when the 21st Amendment to the Constitution was ratified by the required minimum number of states on December 5, 1933.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Corwin Amendment</span> Proposed US constitutional amendment to protect slavery from federal power

The Corwin Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that has never been adopted, but owing to the absence of a ratification deadline, could still be adopted by the state legislatures. It would shield slavery within the states from the federal constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress. Although the Corwin Amendment does not explicitly use the word slavery, it was designed specifically to protect slavery from federal power. The outgoing 36th United States Congress proposed the Corwin Amendment on March 2, 1861, shortly before the outbreak of the American Civil War, with the intent of preventing that war and preserving the Union. It passed Congress but was not ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures.

Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005), was a court case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in a 5–4 decision that ruled that laws in New York and Michigan that permitted in-state wineries to ship wine directly to consumers but prohibited out-of-state wineries from doing the same were unconstitutional. The case was unusual because the arguments centered on the rarely-invoked Twenty-First Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1933, which ended Prohibition in the United States.

A constitutional right can be a prerogative or a duty, a power or a restraint of power, recognized and established by a sovereign state or union of states. Constitutional rights may be expressly stipulated in a national constitution, or they may be inferred from the language of a national constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, meaning that laws that contradict it are considered unconstitutional and invalid. Usually any constitution defines the structure, functions, powers, and limits of the national government and the individual freedoms, rights, and obligations which will be protected and enforced when needed by the national authorities. Nowadays, most countries have a written constitution comprising similar or distinct constitutional rights.

In the United States, the nationwide ban on alcoholic beverages, was repealed by the passage of the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution on December 5, 1933.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Webb–Kenyon Act</span>

The Webb–Kenyon Act was a 1913 law of the United States that regulated the interstate transport of alcoholic beverages. It was meant to provide federal support for the prohibition efforts of individual states in the face of charges that state regulation of alcohol usurped the federal government's exclusive constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alcohol laws of Kansas</span> US state alcohol law

The alcohol laws of Kansas are among the strictest in the United States, in sharp contrast to its neighboring state of Missouri, and similar to its other neighboring state of Oklahoma. Legislation is enforced by the Kansas Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alcoholic beverages in Oregon</span> History, law, and economy

The U.S. state of Oregon has an extensive history of laws regulating the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, dating back to 1844. It has been an alcoholic beverage control state, with the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission holding a monopoly over the sale of all distilled beverages, since Prohibition. Today, there are thriving industries producing beer, wine, and liquor in the state. Alcohol may be purchased between 7 a.m. and 2:30 a.m for consumption at the premise it was sold at, or between 6 a.m. and 2:30 a.m. if it is bought and taken off premise. In 2020, Oregon began allowing the sale of alcohol via home delivery services. As of 2007, consumption of spirits was on the rise while beer consumption held steady. That same year, 11% of beer sold in Oregon was brewed in-state, the highest figure in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prohibition in the United States</span> Alcohol ban, 1920–1933

The Prohibition era was the period from 1920 to 1933 when the United States prohibited the production, importation, transportation and sale of alcoholic beverages. The alcohol industry was curtailed by a succession of state legislatures, and finally ended nationwide under the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified on January 16, 1919. Prohibition ended with the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed the Eighteenth Amendment on December 5, 1933.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rum-running in Windsor, Ontario</span> Alcohol smuggling in 20th century Canada

Rum-running in Windsor, Ontario, Canada, was a major activity in the early part of the 20th century. In 1916, the State of Michigan, in the United States, banned the sale of alcohol, three years before prohibition became the national law in 1919. From that point forward, the City of Windsor, Ontario was a major site for alcohol smuggling and gang activity.

A dry state was a state in the United States in which the manufacture, distribution, importation, and sale of alcoholic beverages was prohibited or tightly restricted. Some states, such as North Dakota, entered the United States as dry states, and others went dry after the passage of prohibition legislation or the Volstead Act. No state remains completely dry, but some states do contain dry counties.

Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581 (1926), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that reaffirmed the National Prohibition Act's limitation on the dispensation of alcoholic medicines. The five-to-four decision, written by Justice Louis D. Brandeis, affirmed the dismissal of a suit in which New York City physician Samuel Lambert sought to prevent Edward Yellowley, the acting federal prohibition director, from enforcing the Prohibition Act so as to preclude him from prescribing alcoholic medicines. The decision affirmed the police powers of the individual states, as well as the power of the Necessary and Proper Clause of the United States Constitution, which was cited in upholding the Prohibition Act's limitations as a necessary and proper implementation of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Section 113 of the Constitution of Australia provides that legally, all intoxicating liquids in a State are to be treated as if they were produced in that State and subject to that State's laws, even if in reality they were produced in another State.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oklahoma Beer Act of 1933</span> United States public law

Oklahoma Beer Act of 1933 is a United States public law legalizing the manufacture, possession, and sale of low-point beer in the State of Oklahoma. The Act of Congress cites the federal statute is binding with the cast of legal votes by the State of Oklahoma constituents or legislative action by the Oklahoma Legislature.

References

  1. ↑ Mark Thornton, The Economics of Prohibition, Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1991.
  2. ↑ Letter on Prohibition – see Daniel Okrent, Great Fortune: The Epic of Rockefeller Center , New York: Viking Press, 2003. (pp. 246–47).
  3. ↑ (Article V, U.S. Constitution)
  4. ↑ Mount, Steve (January 2007). "Ratification of Constitutional Amendments" . Retrieved February 24, 2007.
  5. ↑ Brown, Everett S. (1935). "The Ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment". American Political Science Review. 29 (6): 1005–1017. doi:10.2307/1947315. ISSN   0003-0554. JSTOR   1947315. S2CID   147106828.
  6. ↑ "Citizen or Subject?" . Retrieved August 24, 2010. "An Overlooked Reconsideration of a Fundamental Question in U.S. Constitutional Law". Gilder, Eric and Hagger, Mervyn. British and American Studies (University of the West, Timișoara) 13 (2007): 163–74.
  7. 1 2 "The Repeal Proclamation". The New York Times. December 6, 1933. p. 1.
  8. 1 2 "Day's Repeal Timetable". The New York Times. December 6, 1933. p. 3.
  9. ↑ Roosevelt, Franklin D. (December 6, 1933). "By The President Of The United States, A Proclamation". The Reading Times. p. 8.
  10. ↑ "What Will Defeat Our New Experiment". Salt Lake City Telegram. December 25, 1933. p. 4.
  11. ↑ Universal Newspaper Newsreel from late 1933
  12. ↑ "Amendments to the Constitution of the United States" (PDF). United States Government Printing Office. p. 16 (38). Retrieved December 3, 2018.
  13. ↑ Everett Somerville Brown, ed. (1938), Ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: State Convention Records and Laws, Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, p. 209
  14. ↑ "Immediate Action Promised on State Beer and Wine Bill". The Ludington Daily News (Ludington, Michigan). April 11, 1933. p. 1.
  15. 1 2 "Delaware Repeal Convention Acts Against Dry Law". The News Journal (Wilmington, Delaware). June 24, 1933. p. 1, 20).
  16. ↑ "Rhode Island Casts Is Vote for Repeal: Governor Green Makes Address at Convention". Newport Mercury and Weekly News (Newport, Rhode Island). May 12, 1933. p. 4.
  17. ↑ "Wyoming Casts Formal Vote for Repeal: Final Action Is Unanimous". Casper Star-Tribune (Casper, Wyoming). May 25, 1933. p.1, 2.
  18. ↑ "State Formally Votes Repeal at Convention 202-2". The Central New Jersey Home News (New Brunswick, New Jersey). June 1, 1933. p. 1.
  19. ↑ "Indiana Formally Votes For Prohibition Repeal". Associated Press. The Evansville Journal (Evansville, Indiana). June 27, 1933. p. 4.
  20. ↑ "Bay State Rushes Through Wet Vote: Convention Takes Only 20 Minutes to Cast Ballots for Repeal". The Boston Globe. June 26, 1933. p. 1, 4.
  21. ↑ "New York Ratifies Repeal of Dry Law". United Press International. Buffalo Evening News (Buffalo, New York). June 28, 1933. p. 16.
  22. ↑ "Illinois, Tenth State, Ratifies Dry Law Repeal: 50 Delegates Cast Unanimous Vote". Chicago Tribune. July 11, 1933. p. 1, 6.
  23. ↑ "Iowa Formally Ratifies Dry Law Repeal". Associated Press. Sioux City Journal (Sioux City, Iowa). July 11, 1933. p. 1, 2.
  24. ↑ "Connceticut 12th to Vote to End National Prohibition". Associated Press. The Journal (Meriden, Connecticut). July 11, 1933. p. 1, 9.
  25. 1 2 "Utah Vote Ends Prohibition Era: State's Decisive Ballot Flashed to Nation, 3:32 p. m." The Salt Lake Tribune. December 6, 1933. p. 1, 6, 15.
  26. 1 2 "Maine Officially Ratifies Repeal of Prohibition: State Still Dry, However - Maine's Action Mere Formality". Associated Press. The Lewiston Daily Sun (Lewiston, Maine). December 7, 1933. p. 2.
  27. ↑ "Montana Ratifies 21st Amendment". Associated Press. The Independent-Record (Helena, Montana). August 7, 1934. p. 3.
  28. ↑ "State Goes Officially Against Dry Law Repeal". The State (Columbia, South Carolina). December 5, 1933. p. 1.
  29. ↑ "Surprise Vote Is Tallied". The Charlotte News (Charlotte, North Carolina). November 8, 1933. p. 1.
  30. 1 2 "Pike, 3 Others to Remain 'Dry': 19 Counties Vote for Legal Liquor". Associated Press. Enterprise-Journal (McComb, Mississippi). August 3, 1966. p. 1.
  31. ↑ "Something to celebrate: Repeal of Prohibition". Msbrew.com. December 6, 2007. Archived from the original on January 15, 2013. Retrieved December 19, 2011.
  32. ↑ "Restrictions still rule Kansas industry". Findarticles.com. Archived from the original on July 11, 2012. Retrieved December 19, 2011.
  33. ↑ State Board of Equalization v. Young's Market Co., 299 U.S. 59, 62 (1936).
  34. 1 2 State Board of Equalization v. Young's Market Co., 299 U.S. at 64.
  35. ↑ Craig v. Boren , 429 U.S. 190, 206 (1976).
  36. ↑ California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc. , 445 U.S. 97, 112-114 (1980).
  37. ↑ Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc. , 459 U.S. 116, 122 (1982).
  38. ↑ Craig, 429 U.S. at 207 (citing Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp.377 U.S. 324, 330 and n.9 (1964))
  39. ↑ Craig, 429 U.S. at 207 (citing Joseph E. Seagram & Sons v. Hostetter, 384 U.S. 35, 47–48 and 50–51 (1966); and Williamson v. Lee Optical Co. , 348 U.S. 483 (1955)) (emphasis added).
  40. ↑ Craig, 429 U.S. at 206 (citing Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp., 377 U.S. 324, 330 & 322 (1964); Carter v. Virginia, 321 U.S. 131, 139-140 (1944) (Frankfurter, J., concurring); Finch & Co. v. McKittrick, 305 U.S. 395, 398 (1939); Department of Revenue v. James Beam Distilling Co., 377 U.S. 341 (1964); and Collins v. Yosemite Park & Curry Co. , 304 U.S. 518 (1938)) (emphasis added).
  41. ↑ See 23 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) (2009) ("The Secretary [of Transportation] shall withhold 10 per centum of the amount required to be apportioned to any State under [23 U.S.C. § 104(b)(1)–(2), (5)–(6)] ... in which the purchase or public possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than twenty-one years of age is lawful.").
  42. ↑ Craig, 429 U.S. at 205; accordGriffin v. Sebek, 90 S.D. 692, 703–704 (1976) ("SDCL 35-6-27 provides: 'No licensee under this chapter shall sell or give any low-point beer to any person who is less than eighteen years old or to any person ... who is intoxicated at the time, or who is known to the seller to be an habitual drunkard.'") (quoting S.D. Codified Laws §§ 35-6-27 & 35-4-78(2) (1975)) (Dunn, C.J., dissenting), overruled on other grounds, Walz v. Hudson, 327 N.W.2d 120 (S.D. 1982), superseded by statute, S.D. Codified Laws § 35-4-78 (2009).
  43. ↑ Craig, 429 U.S. at 211.
  44. ↑ Craig, 429 U.S. at 209.
  45. ↑ Craig, 429 U.S. at 212 ("[R]egulation of the minimum age of purchasers of liquor falls squarely within the ambit of those powers reserved to the States by the Twenty-first Amendment. Since States possess this constitutional power, Congress cannot condition a federal grant in a manner that abridges this right. The Amendment, itself, strikes the proper balance between federal and state authority.") (Brennan, J., dissenting) (alteration added) (citation omitted)
  46. ↑ Craig, 429 U.S. at 218 (O'Connor, J., dissenting) (citing Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 716 (1984)).
  47. ↑ 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island , 517 U.S. 484, 516 (1996).
  48. ↑ 44 Liquormart, 517 U.S. at 516 (quoting Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 712 (1984)) (quotation omitted).
  49. ↑ Granholm v. Heald , 544 U.S. 460, 484-485 (2005).
  50. ↑ Granholm, 544 U.S. at 514 (Thomas, J., dissenting).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.