Examine individual changes

[ 0 => '{{US Constitution article series}}', 1 => '[[Image:21st Amendment Pg1of1 AC.jpg|190px|thumb| Amendment XXI in the [[National Archives and Records Administration|National Archives]]]]', 2 => 'The '''Twenty-first Amendment''' ('''Amendment XXI''') to the [[United States Constitution]] repealed the [[Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]], which had mandated nationwide [[Prohibition in the United States|Prohibition on alcohol]] on January 17, 1920. The Twenty-first Amendment was ratified on December 5, 1933. It is unique among the 27 amendments of the U.S. Constitution for being the only one to have been ratified by [[state ratifying conventions]].', 3 => false, 4 => '== Text ==', 5 => '{{quote|'''Section 1.''' The [[Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|eighteenth article of amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution|Constitution of the United States]] is hereby [[repeal]]ed.', 6 => false, 7 => ''''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.', 8 => false, 9 => ''''Section 3.''' This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an [[List of amendments to the United States Constitution|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.}}', 10 => false, 11 => '== Background ==', 12 => '{{Main|Prohibition in the United States|Volstead Act}}', 13 => '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. Passage of the Eighteenth Amendment in 1919 was the crowning achievement of the [[Temperance movement#United States|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.<ref>Mark Thornton, ''The Economics of Prohibition'', Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1991.</ref> In 1932, wealthy industrialist [[John D. Rockefeller, Jr.]] stated in a letter:{{quote|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.<ref>Letter on Prohibition - see Daniel Okrent, ''Great Fortune: The Epic of Rockefeller Center'', New York: Viking Press, 2003. (pp.246/7).</ref>}} 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, only one method had been used up until that time; and that was for 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. For that reason, when [[United States Congress|Congress]] formally proposed the repeal of Prohibition on February 20, 1933 (with the requisite two-thirds having voted in favor in each house; 63 to 21 in the [[United States Senate]] and 289 to 121 in the [[United States House of Representatives]]), it chose the ''other'' ratification method established by [[Article Five of the United States Constitution|Article V]], that being via [[State ratifying conventions|state conventions]]. The Twenty-first Amendment is the ''only'' constitutional amendment ratified by state conventions rather than by the state legislatures.', 14 => false, 15 => '== Proposal and ratification ==', 16 => 'The Congress proposed the Twenty-first Amendment on February 20, 1933.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html|title=Ratification of Constitutional Amendments|accessdate=February 24, 2007|last=Mount|first=Steve|date=January 2007}}</ref>', 17 => false, 18 => 'The proposed amendment was adopted on December 5, 1933. It is the only amendment to have been ratified by [[state ratifying conventions]], specially selected for the purpose.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.johnlilburne.com/reference/hennesey.html|title= Citizen or Subject?|accessdate=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, Timisoara) 13 (2007): 163-74.</ref> All other amendments have been ratified by [[State legislature (United States)|state legislatures]]. It is also the only amendment that was approved for the explicit purpose of repealing a previously existing amendment to the Constitution. The Twenty-first Amendment ending national prohibition became officially effective on December 15, though people started drinking openly before that date.<ref>[[:File:Repeal of Prohibition newsreel ca1933.ogv|Universal Newspaper Newsreel from late 1933]]</ref> ', 19 => false, 20 => 'The various responses of the 48 states is as follows:', 21 => false, 22 => 'The following states ratified the amendment:', 23 => '{{div col|2}}', 24 => '# Michigan (April 10, 1933)', 25 => '# Wisconsin (April 25, 1933)', 26 => '# Rhode Island (May 8, 1933)', 27 => '# Wyoming (May 25, 1933)', 28 => '# New Jersey (June 1, 1933)', 29 => '# Delaware (June 24, 1933)', 30 => '# Indiana (June 26, 1933)', 31 => '# Massachusetts (June 14, 1933)', 32 => '# New York (June 27, 1933)', 33 => '# Illinois (July 10, 1933)', 34 => '# Iowa (July 10, 1933)', 35 => '# Connecticut (July 11, 1933)', 36 => '# New Hampshire (July 11, 1933)', 37 => '# California (July 24, 1933)', 38 => '# West Virginia (July 25, 1933)', 39 => '# Arkansas (August 1, 1933)', 40 => '# Oregon (August 7, 1933)', 41 => '# Alabama (August 8, 1933)', 42 => '# Tennessee (August 11, 1933)', 43 => '# Missouri (August 29, 1933)', 44 => '# Arizona (September 5, 1933)', 45 => '# Nevada (September 5, 1933)', 46 => '# Vermont (September 23, 1933)', 47 => '# Colorado (September 26, 1933)', 48 => '# Washington (October 3, 1933)', 49 => '# Minnesota (October 10, 1933)', 50 => '# Idaho (October 17, 1933)', 51 => '# Maryland (October 18, 1933)', 52 => '# Virginia (October 25, 1933)', 53 => '# New Mexico (November 2, 1933)', 54 => '# Florida (November 14, 1933)', 55 => '# Texas (November 24, 1933)', 56 => '# Kentucky (November 27, 1933)', 57 => '# Ohio (December 5, 1933)', 58 => '# Pennsylvania (December 5, 1933)', 59 => '# Utah (December 5, 1933)', 60 => '{{div col end}}', 61 => 'Ratification was completed on December 5, 1933.', 62 => false, 63 => 'The amendment was subsequently ratified by conventions in the following states:', 64 => false, 65 => '# Maine (December 6, 1933)', 66 => '# Montana (August 6, 1934)', 67 => false, 68 => 'The amendment was rejected by the following state:', 69 => false, 70 => '# South Carolina (December 4, 1933)', 71 => false, 72 => 'Voters in the following state rejected holding a convention to consider the amendment:', 73 => false, 74 => '# North Carolina (November 7, 1933) ', 75 => false, 76 => 'The following states took no action to consider the amendment:', 77 => '# Georgia', 78 => '# Kansas', 79 => '# Louisiana', 80 => '# Mississippi', 81 => '# Nebraska', 82 => '# North Dakota', 83 => '# Oklahoma', 84 => '# South Dakota', 85 => false, 86 => '== Implementation ==', 87 => false, 88 => '=== State and local control ===', 89 => false, 90 => 'The second section bans the importation of alcohol in violation of state or territorial law.', 91 => 'This has been interpreted to give states essentially absolute control over [[alcoholic beverage]]s, and many [[U.S. state]]s still remained "[[Dry state|dry]]" (with state prohibition of alcohol) long after its ratification. [[Mississippi]] was the last, remaining dry until 1966;<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.msbrew.com/2007/12/something-to-celebrate-repeal-of.html|title=Something to celebrate: Repeal of Prohibition|publisher=Msbrew.com|date=2007-12-06|accessdate=2011-12-19}}</ref> Kansas continued to prohibit public bars until 1987.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3488/is_5_86/ai_n13798983|title=Restrictions still rule Kansas industry|publisher=Findarticles.com|accessdate=2011-12-19}}</ref> Many states now delegate the authority over alcohol granted to them by this Amendment to their [[Municipality|municipalities]] or [[County (United States)|counties]] (or both), which has led to many [[lawsuit]]s over [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] rights when local governments have tried to revoke [[liquor license]]s.', 92 => false, 93 => '=== Court rulings ===', 94 => 'Section 2 has been the source of every [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] [[Precedent|ruling]] directly addressing Twenty-first Amendment issues.', 95 => false, 96 => '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.'', {{ussc|299|59|1936}}, the Supreme Court recognized that "Prior to the Twenty-first Amendment it would obviously have been unconstitutional"<ref>[[Case citation|299 U.S. 59, 62(1936)]]</ref> 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.<ref>[[Case citation|299 U.S. 59, 64(1936)]]</ref> In its second holding, the Court rejected an [[Equal Protection Clause|equal protection claim]] because "A classification recognized by the Twenty-first Amendment cannot be deemed forbidden by the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth]]."<ref>[[Case citation|299 U.S. 59, 64 (1936)]]</ref> Over time, the Court has significantly curtailed this initial interpretation.', 97 => false, 98 => 'In ''[[Craig v. Boren]]'' (1976), the Supreme Court found that analysis under the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|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."<ref>[[Case citation|429 U.S. 190, 206 (1976)]]</ref> Likewise, it has been held that Section 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment does not affect the [[Supremacy Clause]]<ref>''California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc.'', 445 U.S. 97, 112-114 (1980)</ref> or the [[Establishment Clause of the First Amendment|Establishment Clause]].<ref>''Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc.'', 459 U.S. 116, 122, n. 5 (1982)</ref> 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;"<ref>[[Case citation|429 U.S. 190, 207 (1976)]] (citing ''Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp.''377 U.S. 324, 330 and n.9 (1964))</ref> and (2) "''purely economic matters'' that traditionally merit only the mildest review under the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]]." <ref>[[Case citation|429 U.S. 190, 207 (1976)]] (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).</ref> 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]]."<ref>[[Case citation|429 U.S. 190, 206 (1976)]] (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).</ref>', 99 => false, 100 => 'In ''[[South Dakota v. Dole]]'' (1987), the Supreme Court upheld the withholding of some federal highway funds<ref>[[Title 23 of the United States Code|''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.").</ref> to [[South Dakota]], because beer with an [[Alcohol by volume|alcohol content below a specified percentage]] could be lawfully sold to adults under the age of 21 within the state.<ref>[[Case citation|483 U.S. 203, 205 (1987)]]; ''accord'' ''Griffin 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).</ref> In a 7–2 majority opinion by [[William Rehnquist|Chief Justice Rehnquist]], the Court held that the offer of benefits is not coercion that inappropriately invades [[Sovereignty|state sovereignty]].<ref>[[Case citation|483 U.S. 203, 211 (1987)]]</ref> The Twenty-first Amendment could not constitute an "independent constitutional bar" to the [[Taxing and Spending Clause|spending power]] granted to [[United States Congress|Congress]] under [[Article One of the United States Constitution|Article I, section 8, clause 1]] of the Constitution.<ref>[[Case citation|483 U.S. 203, 209 (1987)]]</ref> [[William J. Brennan, Jr.|Justice Brennan]], author of the majority opinion in ''[[Craig v. Boren]]'', provided a brief but notable dissent based solely on Section 2.<ref>[[Case citation|483 U.S. 203, 212 (1987)]] ("[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)</ref> [[Sandra Day O'Connor|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."<ref>[[Case citation|483 U.S. 203, 218 (1987)]] (O'Connor, J., dissenting) (citing ''Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp'', 467 U.S. 691, 716 (1984)).</ref>', 101 => false, 102 => '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 to the U.S. Constitution|First Amendment]].<ref>[[Case citation|517 U.S. 484, 516 (1996)]]</ref> [[Rhode Island]] imposed a law that prohibited advertisements that disclosed 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."<ref>[[Case citation|517 U.S. 484, 516 (1996)]] (quoting ''Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp'', 467 U.S. 691, 712 (1984)) (quotation omitted).</ref>', 103 => false, 104 => '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: <blockquote>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.<ref>[[Case citation|544 U.S. 460, 484-485 (2005)]]</ref></blockquote> In a lengthy dissent, [[Clarence Thomas|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 [[Dormant Commerce Clause|negative Commerce Clause]] restraints."<ref>[[Case citation|544 U.S. 460, 514 (2005)]] (Thomas, J., dissenting).</ref> In his historical account, [[Clarence Thomas|Justice Thomas]] argued the early precedent provided by ''State Board of Equalization v. Young's Market Co.'' was indeed correct, and furthered the [[original intent]] of the Twenty-first Amendment to provide a constitutional guarantee authorizing state regulation that might conflict with the [[Dormant Commerce Clause]] (similar to the [[Webb–Kenyon Act]]).', 105 => false, 106 => '== See also ==', 107 => '* [[Alcoholic beverage control state]]', 108 => '* [[List of alcohol laws of the United States by state]]', 109 => '* [[List of dry communities by U.S. state]]', 110 => '* [[State ratifying conventions]]', 111 => false, 112 => '== References ==', 113 => '{{Reflist|2}}', 114 => false, 115 => '== External links ==', 116 => '* [http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html#21 National Archives: Twenty first Amendment]', 117 => '* [http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt21toc_user.html CRS Annotated Constitution: Twenty first Amendment]', 118 => false, 119 => '{{US Constitution}}', 120 => '{{Prohibition}}', 121 => false, 122 => '{{Authority control}}', 123 => '{{DEFAULTSORT:21}}', 124 => '[[Category:1933 in law|Darrell Dugas Jr.]]', 125 => '[[Category:Amendments to the United States Constitution]]', 126 => '[[Category:Prohibition in the United States]]', 127 => '[[Category:History of the United States (1918–45)]]', 128 => '[[Category:History of drug control]]', 129 => '[[Category:Alcohol law in the United States]]', 130 => '[[Category:1933 in the United States]]', 131 => '[[Category:73rd United States Congress]]' ]