What bothers me about the second amendment...

[toddjh]

...are those damn extraneous commas!

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That sentence doesn't even parse!

And now, a legitimate Constitutional question. The second article of Amendment 21, repealing Prohibition, reads:

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.

What good does it do to have a Constitutional amendment prohibiting something which is already illegal? Is it to make it punishable as a federal offense rather than a state one? Just curious.

Jeremy

[shanek]

Originally posted by toddjh
...are those damn extraneous commas!

Those commas were not there when the amendment was passed. No one seems to know where they came from. The amendment as passed reads:

A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

What good does it do to have a Constitutional amendment prohibiting something which is already illegal? Is it to make it punishable as a federal offense rather than a state one?

Yes. The Commerce Clause prohibits states from restricting or imposing duties on goods imported to it from another state. So this issue falls under Federal jurisdiction.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by shanek
Those commas were not there when the amendment was passed. No one seems to know where they came from.

Hmm. The transcription on the National Archives web site includes the commas. The pictures of one of the original documents that they have are too faded and low-resolution for me to be sure, but at the very least it looks like there's some extra space between the words where the commas appear. What's your source for saying that they were not originally there?

I don't know why it bothers me so much. I think it's mostly the fact that it doesn't seem to bother many people at all -- I think we should at least demand good syntax from our government. :)

Yes. The Commerce Clause prohibits states from restricting or imposing duties on goods imported to it from another state. So this issue falls under Federal jurisdiction.

I'm not sure I understand. The amendment in question only prohibits the importation of liquor into the states "in violation of the laws thereof." If there are already state laws prohibiting the importation of alcohol, how does the Commerce Clause apply here?

Jeremy

[shanek]

Originally posted by toddjh
Hmm. The transcription on the National Archives web site includes the commas. The pictures of one of the original documents that they have are too faded and low-resolution for me to be sure, but at the very least it looks like there's some extra space between the words where the commas appear. What's your source for saying that they were not originally there?

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Statutes at Large, 1st Congress, 1st Session
Page 97 of 755

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/001/0200/02210097.gif

It's actually article IV; the first article was never passed and the second wasn't passed until 1992 (well, better late than never).

I'm not sure I understand. The amendment in question only prohibits the importation of liquor into the states "in violation of the laws thereof." If there are already state laws prohibiting the importation of alcohol, how does the Commerce Clause apply here?

Because a state can only make the liquor illegal inside the state. If they do, the Federal government can make it a crime to import liquor into the state.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by toddjh

I don't know why it bothers me so much. I think it's mostly the fact that it doesn't seem to bother many people at all -- I think we should at least demand good syntax from our government. :)




I am usually more concerned about what is a "more perfect" union.

[OdderMensch]

As compared to the 'less perfect' union of the Articles of Confederation. Plus, I think they knew it would never be perfect, they were just trying to get a bit closer to perfection.

The Constitution is brilliant. If only our elected leaders would follow it.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
As compared to the 'less perfect' union of the Articles of Confederation.

Anything less than perfection is not perfect.

Kind of like "very unique"

or

"Almost exact agreement"