Posted by Todd Zywicki:
WINE WARS, PART 15—O’CONNOR ON SENATOR WAGNER AND PROPOSED §3:

   So that brings us to Justice O'Connor's last figure, Senator Wagner.
   She quotes him at length: Senator Wagner was an especially vigorous
   opponent of the proposed § 3. In his view, it failed to "correct the
   central error of national prohibition. It does not restore to the
   States responsibility for their local liquor problems. It does not
   withdraw the Federal Government from the field of local police
   regulation into which it has trespassed." Id., at 4144. In Senator
   Wagner's view, the danger of § 3 was that even this limited grant of
   authority to the Federal Government would result in federal control of
   the liquor trade:
   "If Congress may regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors where they
   are to be drunk on premises where sold, then we shall probably see
   Congress attempt to declare during what hours such premises may be
   open, where they shall be located, how they shall be operated, the sex
   and age of the purchasers, the price at which the beverages are to be
   sold....
   * * *
   "It is entirely conceivable that in order to protect such a
   prohibition the courts might sustain the prohibition or regulation of
   all sales of beverages whether intended to be drunk on the premises or
   not. And if sales may be regulated, so may transportation and
   manufacture.... If that is to be the history of the proposed
   amendment--and there is every reason to expect it--then obviously we
   have expelled the system of national control through the front door of
   section 1 and readmitted it forthwith through the back door of section
   3." Id., at 4147.
   At this point it is not clear whether I even need to elaborate on why
   this speech proves the opposite of what Justice O'Connor believes. The
   quote from Wagner quite clearly indicates that Congressman Wagener
   opposed §3 because it would have given Congress the power to meddle in
   local affairs and to thereby interfere with the state's exercise of
   their police power, and indeed, there was the fear that Congress might
   use this power to reimpose prohibition on the states. In expressing
   his desire to restore to the states their control over these local
   affairs by deleting §3, there is nothing here to suggest that he
   thought that §2 gave to the states Congress's power to regulate
   interstate commerce. It should be equally obvious that unlike
   O'Connor, Wagner did not consider this to be a "limited grant of
   authority," but rather undermined the essential purpose of the 21st
   Amendment.
   Wagner quite clearly believed that the purpose of the 21st Amendment
   was to restore the pre-18th Amendment constitutional and legal regime.
   Immediately before the above-quoted passage, Wagner states, "Mr.
   President, the pending joint resolution tendered to the Senate and the
   country is called a proposal to repeal the eighteenth amendment, and
   because artfully it employs the word `repeal' in its first section, it
   pretends to fulfill the wish overwhelmingly expressed by the American
   people in the last election. But I submit that the pending resolution
   does not in fact repeal the inherently false philosophy of ht
   eighteenth amendment. It does not correct the central error of
   national prohibition. It does not restore to the States responsibility
   for their local liquor problems." Cong. Rec. at 4144. As Wagner makes
   clear, the 21st Amendment did not embody the bizarre theory adopted by
   Justice O'Connor that the 21st Amendment restored the
   pre-Constitutional balance where the states controlled interstate
   commerce. Rather, Wagner plainly states that it was intended to
   restore to the states control over their LOCAL affairs governing
   liquor.
   Wagner elaborates on this point even more plainly, "I have many times
   declared and I now repeat that the question which has troubled the
   American people since the eighteenth amendment was added to the
   Constitution was not at all concerned with liquor. It was a question
   of government: how to restore the constitutional balance of power and
   authority in our Federal system which had been upset by national
   prohibition. That equilibrium which prior to the eighteenth amendment
   was one of the functional marvels of our system of government is not
   restored by the pending resolution. On the contrary, it perpetuates
   the lack of balance, the absence of symmetry, the confusion and
   overlapping of Federal and local authority." Id. at 4144. Elsewhere he
   elaborates on the problems that this concurrent authority inevitably
   would cause, in that the operation of the Supremacy Clause would
   inevitably mean that local regulation would be overridden by federal
   legislation. "The real cause of the failure of the eighteenth
   amendment was that it attempted to impose a single standard of conduct
   upon all the people of the United States without regard to local
   sentiment and local habits. Section 3 of the pending joint resolution
   proposes to condemn the new amendment to a similar fate of failure and
   futility."
   Now, I don't know how Wagner could be any more clear in expressing his
   intent that that the purpose of the 21st Amendment was to restore the
   pre-18th Amendment constitutional balance. Recall also, that it was
   Wagner who clarified Blaine's "in effect" language by making it clear
   that Webb-Kenyon did not give the states control over interstate
   commerce, but rather was an exercise of congressional power to allow
   states to enforce their legitimate police powers against interstate
   alcohol. Somehow, Justice O'Connor draws from this that Wagner's
   criticism of §3 illustrates his belief that §2 gave the states plenary
   power. With respect to Lea and Blaine, O'Connor's argument may be
   reasonable, but is wrong. With respect to Wagner's statements,
   however, O'Connor's interpretation cannot be taken seriously. This is
   pure sloppiness or a fundamental misunderstanding of what the framers
   of the 21st Amendment were trying to do. Regardless, read in context,
   it is clear that Wagner was arguing for a restoration of the pre-18th
   Amendment legal and constitutional regime.

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to