3 ms·
When interpreting a text, and it appears that two statements appear to be in conflict, the more specific statement is to be followed. The interstate commerce c
by tomohawk 9y ago
When interpreting a text, and it appears that two statements appear to be in conflict, the more specific statement is to be followed.
The interstate commerce clause gives Congress the power to regulate (make normal) commerce between the states, removing the power of states to impose tarrifs or other barriers to trade. This was a big problem at the time. The 21st amendment specifically makes an exception to this general clause in the case of intoxicating spirits.
- CalChris 9y agoIn the case of Amendments, it isn't the more specific but rather the more recent. So the 21st carves out an exception in the Commerce Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. Otherwise, yeah, the Articles of Confederation weren't working.
- neekburm 9y agoThis was the crux of state regulators' arguments in Granholm v. Heald, and it failed there. From Wikipedia: "The context of the 21st Amendment, they wrote, was to return to the status quo that existed before Prohibition, making it clear that the states had the power to regulate alcohol however they wished, including banning alcoholic beverages entirely within the state if desired. Before Prohibition, the states did not have the power to violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, and the 21st Amendment was not intended to grant them this power."