Document: The Repeal of Prohibition
Sources [will open in a new window]:
The
Twenty-First Amendment
Cartoon
from the Seattle Post Intelligencer (1933)
Charles
Lane, "Justices Reject Curbs on Wine Sales. 5-4 Ruling a Victory
for Interstate Shippers," Washington Post, May 17, 2005
Comments:
Repeal ended prohibition by passage of the 21st amendment;
it returned the power to control alcohol sale to the state governments,
under the federal system. This allowed pro-prohibition states to continue
to restrict alcohol supply even though national prohibition had been
repealed. Some states, including Washington state in the Pacific Northwest,
as in the first document, created Alcohol Beverage Control systems of
state-owned liquor stores to prevent reintroduction of the powerful
political and economic interests formerly thought to be associated with
the saloons and breweries. In the states, restrictions were imposed
on the alcohol content of liquor sold in certain areas, as in Washington
state, and in the ordinances concerning the city of Seattle within that
state around the University of Washington.
The cartoon from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer newspaper indicates
the attachment of ideas of American liberty, iconically represented
through the Statue of Liberty, to the right to drink; however the illustration
is also over-arched by Temperance, indicating the continued desire to
achieve regulation of the use of alcohol and to promote moderation in
drinking.
This 21st amendment still affects the supply of alcohol today, as the
third document indicates. It is provided in Section 2 of the 21st amendment
that “The transportation or importation into any state ..for delivery
or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof,
is hereby prohibited.” In 2004, at least 23 states still banned
direct shipment of wine by out-of-state wineries under this amendment.
This was recently the subject of dispute in the US court system over
the interpretation of the meaning of the 21st amendment: exactly what
powers were given to the states as opposed to the rights of individuals
to free interstate commerce as provided elsewhere in the constitution?
In May 2005, by a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court struck down certain
state laws (the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on the constitutionality
of state and federal laws) preventing the mail order entry of out-of-state
wines. “State policies are protected under the Twenty-first Amendment
when they treat liquor produced out of state the same as its domestic
equivalent,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.
This meant that the states could prevent mail order liquor orders from
wineries only if they prohibited all such sales both within and out
of state in origin.