Congress To Celebrate Repeal Day, Its Own Inability To Learn from History

Tuesday, September 16th, 2008

The House of Representatives is considering a resolution to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the repeal of alcohol prohibition. From the bill’s peremptory clauses:

Whereas throughout American history, alcohol has been consumed by its citizens and regulated by the Government;

Whereas prior to the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which established Prohibition in the United States, abuses and insufficient regulation resulted in irresponsible overconsumption of alcohol;

Whereas passage of the 18th Amendment, which prohibited `the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors’ in the United States, resulted in a dramatic increase in illegal activity, including unsafe black market alcohol production, organized crime, and noncompliance with alcohol laws;…

Think any of the congresscritters who vote for the bill will notice the irony?

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

13 Responses to “Congress To Celebrate Repeal Day, Its Own Inability To Learn from History”

  1. #1 |  Geekfather | 

    Q: What’s the difference between the United States Congress and the Special Olympics?

    A: Medals.

    So… no… I doubt they’ll see the irony.

  2. #2 |  Marty | 

    I can’t see the special olympics being compared to congress… however, I CAN see a comparison with congress and the olympics. corruption in the judging, bribes in deciding where the olympics will be held, huge works programs building the stadiums, lots of sex, drugs, and partying in olympic village (just like DC), with the authorities giving them a wink and a nod, bullshit plaques being handed out for bullshit government accomplishments would be the equal to some of these bullshit medals being handed out for some of these bullshit sports, over-aggressive security, etc, etc…

    I’ve been to the special olympics and I don’t think they’d appreciate being lumped together with congress.

  3. #3 |  omar | 

    The people who wrote the resolution know exactly what it says. The people who didn’t write it probably won’t read it.

    The drug-warriors are just rubbing their irony in our faces.

  4. #4 |  Michael Chaney | 

    Whereas prior to the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which established Prohibition in the United States, abuses and insufficient regulation resulted in irresponsible overconsumption of alcohol;

    They still don’t get it.

  5. #5 |  Legate Damar | 

    guys, this is a trick question. “ANY” congressgritters?

    Yes.

    At least two of them (Ron Paul, Barney Frank.) But very probably less than five.

  6. #6 |  Cogswell | 

    But wait.

    Let us PRAISE the 18th (i say this while drinking a beer).

    Or rather let us PRAISE the method in which they forced their nannyism on us.

    At one time they knew they couldn’t use the FDA or ATF because they knew that the federal government didn’t have the power without constitutional power. Thus the 18th.

    Back then the progressives went about it the right way. By a constitutional amend. People didn’t like it … and it was repealled. Wow… the system worked.

    Sadly people wouldn’t take this path anymore… some agency would declare it bad for children .. and the next thing you know it is outlawed … without a real hearing from the people.

    So. On this day – let us be HAPPY that at one time the republic worked.

    The 18th – proof that at one time it was common that people knew that limitations on the federal government existed…

  7. #7 |  Cynical In CA | 

    (-1) to Godfather for giving Congress WAY too much credit.

  8. #8 |  Cynical In CA | 

    PIMF — Geekfather. Pardon.

  9. #9 |  KBCraig | 

    Back then the progressives went about it the right way. By a constitutional amend. People didn’t like it … and it was repealled. Wow… the system worked.

    This is also why marijuana was first controlled through tax stamps, and why machineguns were taxed, rather than banned. It was openly understood, by both the Congress and the People, that the federal government had no constitutional authority to ban anything.

  10. #10 |  Andrew Williams | 

    Same as it ever was (smack!). Same as it ever was (smack!).
    Same as it ever was (smack!). Same as it ever was (smack!).

  11. #11 |  Vlad Drac | 

    Same as it ever was (smack!). Same as it ever was (smack!)

    It’s like slapping yourself in the face.

  12. #12 |  freedomfan | 

    Good point, Cogswell. I use that example quite often when discussing government overreach. Typically, someone will say, “I thought they could do whatever they wanted because of the Commerce Clause.” I explain that the purpose of the CC was never to let government regulate everything under the sun and then ask, “Why do you think the 18th Amendment was passed? Not what did they hope to accomplish, but why did they need an Amendment to do it?” That’s usually a pretty good entrée to point out that, for most of the country’s history, people understood that the Constitution did not allow the government the power to regulate or ban anything by passing ordinary legislation.

    I would really love to hear a Supreme Court justice explain why the 18th Amendment was needed before the government could ban alcohol. I mean, passing a Constitutional Amendment is a huge undertaking; does the SCOTUS think it was simply an unnecessary parliamentary tactic or something?

  13. #13 |  Red Green | 

    Yeah…and “THE MEDIA” will not notice the congress not noticing.The 18th ,may be the only ammendment, they are still paying any attention to.

Leave a Reply