The 21st Amendment was proposed on February 20th, 1933, was passed on December 5th, 1933 and was rectified during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The 21st Amendment was proposed in order to nullify the so-called Prohibition Amendment (18th Amendment). It is the only incident in the constitutional history of the United States that an amendment was repealed. The 21st Amendment of the constitution is inextricably linked with the 18th Amendment. The 18th Amendment prohibited the manufacturing and transportation of Alcohol and other intoxicating liquors in the United States. The 18th Amendment was the consequence of the anti-liquor sentiments present in the 19th century. Most of the religious groups were of the view that intoxication was a scourge for the nation and must be done away with. Behind the 18th Amendment, there was the noble intention of emancipating the nation from the curse of Alcoholic beverages. Strong public sentiment in the favor of prohibition paved the way for the rectification of the 18th Amendment.
Soon it became clear that it was not easy to enforce the Prohibition Amendment. Much to the dismay of its supporters the Prohibition Amendment caused more problems than it solved. It became extremely difficult for the federal machinery to implement the Prohibition Amendment and instead of curbing other social evils this step further aggravate the situation. Organized crimes soar due to the black market of Alcohol and with that the movement to repeal the 18th Amendment grew stronger and stronger. By the mid 1920s, the public sentiment was already against the Prohibition and the economic depression of 1930s proved the last nail in the coffin for 18th Amendment. The widespread public disillusionment compelled the Congress to repeal the 18th Amendment. To state it in the words of Hodak, “The rise of organized crime syndicates, spurred by a flourishing bootlegging industry, gave momentum to calls in the early 1930s for a 21st Amendment repealing the "noble experiment."” (Hodak)
The first section of the 21st Amendment repeals the prohibition on Alcoholic beverages imposed by the 18th Amendment. It states, “The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.” (The Constitution of the United States 18) In the second section of the 21st Amendment, it is mentioned that states have the right to regulate the distribution of intoxicated beverages within their boundaries. It grants states the special right to make regulation regarding the imports of intoxicated liquors.
The issue that ‘can states make discriminatory laws regarding the distribution of liquors’ was not clear in the Amendment. This issue was made clear by the subsequent rulings of the Court. The Court opined that states cannot create discrimination between in-state wineries and out-of-state wineries without the consent of Congress. However, as long as their regulations are not discriminatory, and are not in direct conflict with the other provisions of the constitution they can enact any regulation.
Some of the implications of 21st Amendment are given below. The 21st Amendment went a long way in decreasing the influence of organized crime syndicates. Prohibition helped organized crime organizations to get strong as they were able to sell intoxicated beverages at their desired rates due to the illegality of Alcohol. This income from illegal Alcohol selling made these gangs more powerful and increased their area of influence. But, after the enactment of the 21st Amendment, Alcohol became legally available at the local market place and this loss of customer base curbed the economic power of criminal organizations. Consequently, their power is reduced and streets became a little less dangerous.
Another significant implication of 21st amendment is on the economy of the country. When the intoxicated liquors were prohibited people brought them from the black market and did not pay taxes on them. But, after the legalization of Alcohol beverages their buying and selling added to the national exchequer. It is worthy of note that Congress made Alcohol legal during the depression of 1930s in order to increase the tax money.
Following are some of the important cases, including the 21st Amendment and its interpretation. Granholm v. Heald is a case dealing with the dispute between small wineries and the states of New York and Michigan. Both states prohibited the out-of-state wineries to ship wine directly to their residents by invoking the 21st Amendments, but allowed in-state wineries to do so. Supreme Court gave the ruling in favor of out-of-state wineries by maintaining that the prohibition imposes by the states of New York and Michigan is against the Dormant Commerce Clause of the Constitution. In the view of the Court, the states cannot enact discriminatory laws against sellers without the auspicious of the Congress. The Court wrote in its verdict that the purpose of the 21st Amendment was to take things back as they were before the Prohibition Amendment. Since before the Prohibition Amendment states could not undermine the Dormant Commerce Clause, so the 21st Amendment does not give them this right as well. The Court, however, maintained that 21st Amendment gives states full authority to make nondiscriminatory and uniform laws regarding the regulation of liquor. (Trachman and Vikram)
Craig v. Boren is another important case involving 21st Amendment. In this case, The Court ruled that the special right given to states regarding the making of regulations about the intoxicated liquor in 21st Amendment does not undermine the protection against gender discrimination provided under the 14th Amendment. So, in the views of the Honorable Court, states cannot enact discriminatory laws, but the 21st Amendment does create an exception to the normal operation of the Commerce Clause. The Court also concluded that 21st Amendment do provide states a clear and transparent regulatory authority. (Federalism and the Supreme Court at a Glance)
The Constitution of the United States. Print.
"Federalism and the Supreme Court at a Glance." Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases
39.6 (2012): 38. ProQuest. Web. 28 Oct. 2014.
Hodak, George. "Prohibition Repealed." Dec 2007. ProQuest Criminal Justice. Web. 28 October 2014.
Trachman, Will, and Vikram David Amar. "Discriminating Taste: May Michigan and New York
Restrict the Ability of Out-of-State Wineries to Sell Wine within their Borders?" Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases.3 (2004): 177-82. ProQuest. Web. 28 Oct. 2014.