2 ms·
> The federal government is much more constrained (or was intended to be), and outlawing alcohol with an act of Congress would be a violation of the 10th Amendm
by joshuamorton 7y ago
> The federal government is much more constrained (or was intended to be), and outlawing alcohol with an act of Congress would be a violation of the 10th Amendment.
Commerce clause, among others. There are all kinds of federal regulations and bans that have been upheld as constitutional. Claiming that they aren't really is wishful, not legal, thinking.
> Interestingly, even the 1st Amendment did not originally prevent states from infringing on the freedom of speech
This isn't correct. It's the due process clause that is operative, and the supreme Court has ruled that states can't remove rights, including those technically protected only from the federal gov, without due process.
- comex 7y agoThey said “originally”, i.e. before the 14th Amendment, which contains the due process clause. Edit: There’s also a “due process” clause in the Fifth Amendment, but it’s not the one used for incorporation (although it’s been used for so-called “reverse incorporation”).