Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Prohibition, the Constitution, and States' Rights$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Sean Beienburg

Print publication date: 2019

Print ISBN-13: 9780226631943

Published to Chicago Scholarship Online: January 2020

DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226632278.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM CHICAGO SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.chicago.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright University of Chicago Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in CHSO for personal use.date: 22 June 2021

Conclusion

Conclusion

Prohibition and American Constitutionalism

Chapter:
(p.229) Chapter Eleven Conclusion
Source:
Prohibition, the Constitution, and States' Rights
Author(s):

Sean Beienburg

Publisher:
University of Chicago Press
DOI:10.7208/chicago/9780226632278.003.0011

After successfully mobilizing on behalf of states’ rights, the AAPA evolved into the Liberty League seeking to stop Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, which it considered a betrayal of their support. Roosevelt’s success in defeating them, and ensuing Supreme Court precedents like Wickard v. Filburn, ushered in an expansive understanding of federal power rendering superfluous future efforts to augment national authority via constitutional amendment. After concluding that history, the chapter assesses the prohibition debates as an application of various legal theories. Prohibition offers a model example of extrajudicial constitutional interpretation, with thoughtful, careful, public deliberation by state elected officials rather than simply deference to judicial supremacy. Perceived constitutional obligations often constrained their behavior even at great political cost. Though less obviously, prohibition also arguably serves as an example of popular constitutionalism. Far from lawlessly insisting on alcohol, American citizens arguably got the Constitution right in rejecting both nullification and state concurrent enforcement laws, effectively adopting the non-commandeering doctrine illustrated by later cases like Printz v. United States. As both our contemporary indifference to citing (and being constrained by) the enumerated powers and flirtations with nullification attest, the era’s sophisticated constitutional dialogue has not always been the norm in American history.

Keywords:   Liberty League, Wickard v Filburn, extrajudicial constitutional interpretation, popular constitutionalism, judicial supremacy, non commandeering doctrine, Printz v United States, nullification, enumerated powers

Chicago Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.