Timeline for 21st Amendment defence against drug crimes
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2015 at 21:42 | comment | added | cpast | Also, I think there's one more key component: at the time the 21st Amendment was adopted, other drugs were a thing. Courts do extend language from time to time; the Constitution doesn't allow Congress to make an air force (just an army and navy) or regulate it (just land and naval forces), but since air forces didn't exist at the time and it's the same sort of thing it still falls under the category. But the 21st Amendment could have been explicitly applied to all drugs, and it wasn't. | |
| Jun 10, 2015 at 23:50 | history | edited | user248 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Jun 10, 2015 at 23:42 | comment | added | user248 | @cpast I was a bit hyperbolic, but I meant that it would have likely been briefed by Riach's side, which included amicus briefs from three different states, and the Constitutional Law Scholars. My expectation is that if the 21st amendment argument was compelling, that one of those briefs would have mentioned it. | |
| Jun 10, 2015 at 23:31 | comment | added | cpast | Would it have revealed it? I don't think anyone raised the claim, so is the court's ruling considered a rejection of that claim (as the court would have discovered it itself it was valid)? | |
| Jun 10, 2015 at 23:06 | vote | accept | irth | ||
| Mar 26, 2016 at 22:46 | |||||
| Jun 10, 2015 at 22:59 | comment | added | user248 | @irth Yes, exactly. One of the principles of statutory/constitutional interpretation is the textual approach, or a plain meaning approach. Most analysis starts at the plain meaning of the text, and only if the plain meaning is ambiguous or unreasonable does analysis start to look for other signals like intent of the legislature/founders, etc. | |
| Jun 10, 2015 at 22:58 | history | edited | user248 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 477 characters in body
|
| Jun 10, 2015 at 22:57 | comment | added | irth | Ah, I see. So if it was Congress' intent to prevent prohibition of all drugs then they needed to be explicit and there isn't implicit traction here? | |
| Jun 10, 2015 at 22:52 | history | answered | user248 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |