# data[].attributes.body
The second amendment gives you or other people to hold or conceal a gun. Guns help protect people around the world but they can also be used for dangerous purposes.

# data[].attributes.body
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, was proposed by James Madison to allow the creation of civilian forces that can counteract a tyrannical federal government.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

The Second Amendment was part of the Bill of Rights that was added to the Constitution on December 15, 1791. This amendment protects the rights of citizens to "bear arms" or own weapons such as guns.

When created, many state constitutions required men to own a gun and supplies needed to operate that firearm.

Firearm enthusiasts argue that it gives everyone a right to own and operate a gun.

# data[].attributes.body
Second amendment, right to bear arms (bear arms) date 15 1791

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/35

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/35

# data[].attributes.body
When the 4th amendment is violated when getting evidence for a case (ex taping without warrant) it has to be dismissed as “fruit from a poisonous tree”. Even though the evidence is completely solid it cannot be used to convict someone. As in this case there was prior taping without warrant and thus was under the protection of the 4th amendment.

# data[].attributes.headline
The government and it’s officers cannot:

# data[].attributes.subject
The government and it’s officers cannot:

# data[].attributes.body
-Search persons, houses, papers, and effects without warrant
-Tape or record evidence before a person has been accused
-Give arbitrary arrests
-Violate the right of privacy of those convicted

Searches allowed include consent searches, motor vehicle searches, border searches and more.

# data[].attributes.headline
25th Amendment: If the president is unable to serve their term in the office, the Vice President will presumably take over (25 HE DIED)

# data[].attributes.subject
25th Amendment: If the president is unable to serve their term in the office, the Vice President will presumably take over (25 HE DIED)

# data[].attributes.body
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-the-25th-amendment-gets-its-first-test

# data[].attributes.body
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w1k6Q5K6cZE

# data[].attributes.body
Kavya K.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aoc-fdr-amendment/

# data[].attributes.body
History of the 16th amendment

# data[].attributes.body
5 interesting facts about the 16th amendment:
1.The Sixteenth Amendment, was established in 1913, played a central role in building up the powerful American federal government.
2.The making of the Sixteenth Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court's 1895 decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. holding unconstitutional Congress's attempt of the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States.
3.On this date, the states of Delaware, Wyoming, and New Mexico approved the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratifying it into law. The amendment empowered Congress to impose an income tax on individuals and corporations.
4:The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1913 and allows Congress to levy a tax on income from any source without apportioning it among the states and without regard to the census.
5:Passed in 1913, this amendment to the Constitution calls for the direct election of senators by the voters instead of their election by state legislatures.

# data[].attributes.body
24th amendment

Poll tax banned in federal elections

1964

Help the poor!

States can’t require a poll tax for citizens to vote.

People who have voted failed to pay any other taxes may vote.

They can vote for president

The congress shall have power to enforce the articles by appropriate legislation.

the poor should not be denied or abridged to vote for not paying there taxes

# data[].attributes.body
Plead the 5th

December 15, 1791

In Britain the main source of proof in the courts was confessions of the accused.

James Madison proposed the 5th amendment in 1789, when he proposed the bill of rights.

The right to be free from self incrimination was in nine state constitutions before it was put into the constitution.

June 13, 1966: The Supreme Court decided the outcome of Miranda v. Arizona, stating that if an accused person isn’t aware of their 5th amendment rights their confession cannot be used in court.

The last time the 5th amendment was brought to the supreme courts was in 2003, Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, it's not double jeopardy if a convict appeals his life sentence and the jury denies his appeal and gives him a life sentence.

# data[].attributes.body
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-miranda-v-arizona

You have the right to remain silent, anything you say Cana no will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.

# data[].attributes.body
The 22nd amendment : Limitation of president to two terms of office (1951)

(22-Limit terms two twice)- ratified on February 27, 1951

According to the 22nd amendment no one can be president for more than two terms

No one can run or be elected for president more than twice

No man or female can be president for more than 8 years.

There are 4 years in each term

Was passed by Congress in 1947

This amendment also stops someone who filled in a term for more than two years from running as president from for more than two terms

Example: let’s say a president was impeached and the Vice President became the new president if they covered the term for less than two years than they can run for president two times if not then they can’t run for president more than once

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The Ninth Amendment Gives basic civil rights to the people,                       or "Power to the People" as represented in the picture above.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ninth Amendment: Rights not listed are retained by the people. (Nine keeps you Fine), date December 15th, 1791

# data[].attributes.subject
Ninth Amendment: Rights not listed are retained by the people. (Nine keeps you Fine), date December 15th, 1791

# data[].attributes.body
1. The Ninth Amendment states that rights such as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, that aren't listed in the Constitution are still protected and applied to the citizens.
2. This amendment is applicable to any basic right in the promise of America, but there is no specified list of all the rights.
3. The Ninth Amendment is a controversial amendment based on the fact of who controls what rights are still protected that aren't listed.
4. Some historians say the founding fathers meant for this power of saying what rights are protected and what aren't are the jobs of the state governments.
5. Some historians argue otherwise, saying that the Supreme Court is meant to decide the rights protected.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.thoughtco.com/ninth-amendment-supreme-court-cases-721170

These are the Court Cases of:
U.S. Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947)
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Concurring Opinion

Both these cases involved arguments over if a certain right was protected by the Ninth or not.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Ninth Amendment ensures that you don't lose certain rights just because they're not specifically granted to you or mentioned elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution.

It reads:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

By necessity, the amendment is a little vague. The Supreme Court hasn't explored its territory in depth. The court hasn't been asked to decide the amendment's merit or interpret it as it relates to a given case.

When it's incorporated into the 14th Amendment's broad due process and equal protection mandates, however, these unspecified rights can be interpreted as a general endorsement of civil liberties. The court is obligated to protect them, even if they're not explicitly mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution.​

Nevertheless, despite more than two centuries of judicial precedent, the Ninth Amendment has yet to be the sole basis of a Supreme Court ruling. Even when it has been used as a direct appeal in prominent cases, it ends up being paired with other amendments.

Some argue this is because the Ninth Amendment doesn't actually grant specific rights, but instead lays out how a myriad of rights that are not covered in the Constitution still exist. This makes the amendment harder to pin down in a judicial ruling by itself.

Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe argues,

"It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution."

At least two Supreme Court cases attempted to use the Ninth Amendment in their rulings, though they were ultimately forced to pair them with other amendments.

U.S. Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947)

The Mitchell case involved a group of federal employees accused of violating the then-recently passed Hatch Act, which prohibits most employees of the executive branch of the federal government from engaging certain political activities.

The court ruled that only one of the employees had violated the act. That man, George P. Poole, argued, to no avail, that he had only acted as a poll worker on election day and as a paymaster for other poll workers for his political party. None of his actions were partisan, his lawyers argued to the court. The Hatch Act violated the Ninth and 10th amendments, he said.

At first glance, the 1947 Mitchell ruling as given by Justice Stanley Reed sounds sensible enough:

The powers granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government are subtracted from the totality of sovereignty originally in the states and the people. Therefore, when objection is made that the exercise of a federal power infringes upon rights reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the inquiry must be directed toward the granted power under which the action of the Union was taken. If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail.

But there's a problem with this: It has absolutely nothing to do with rights. This jurisdictional approach, focused as it was on the states' rights to challenge federal authority, doesn't acknowledge that people are not jurisdictions.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Concurring Opinion

The Griswold ruling effectively legalized birth control ​ in 1965.

It relied heavily on an individual's right to privacy, a right that is implicit but not explicitly stated in the language of the Fourth Amendment's "right of the people to be secure in their persons," nor in the 14th Amendment's doctrine of equal protection.

Does its status as an implicit right that can be protected depend in part on the Ninth Amendment's protection of unspecified implicit rights? Justice Arthur Goldberg argued that it does in his concurrence:

I do agree that the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights. My conclusion that the concept of liberty is not so restricted, and that it embraces the right of marital privacy, though that right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, is supported both by numerous decisions of this Court, referred to in the Court's opinion, and by the language and history of the Ninth Amendment. In reaching the conclusion that the right of marital privacy is protected as being within the protected penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights, the Court refers to the Ninth Amendment ... I add these words to emphasize the relevance of that Amendment to the Court's holding ...
This Court, in a series of decisions, has held that the Fourteenth Amendment absorbs and applies to the States those specifics of the first eight amendments which express fundamental personal rights. The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments ... It was proffered to quiet expressed fears that a bill of specifically enumerated rights could not be sufficiently broad to cover all essential rights, and that the specific mention of certain rights would be interpreted as a denial that others were protected ...
The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution may be regarded by some as a recent discovery, and may be forgotten by others, but, since 1791, it has been a basic part of the Constitution which we are sworn to uphold. To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment, and to give it no effect whatsoever.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Dissenting Opinion

In his dissent, Justice Potter Stewart disagreed:

...to say that the Ninth Amendment has anything to do with this case is to turn somersaults with history. The Ninth Amendment, like its companion, the Tenth ... was framed by James Madison and adopted by the States simply to make clear that the adoption of the Bill of Rights did not alter the plan that the Federal Government was to be a government of express and limited powers, and that all rights and powers not delegated to it were retained by the people and the individual States. Until today, no member of this Court has ever suggested that the Ninth Amendment meant anything else, and the idea that a federal court could ever use the Ninth Amendment to annul a law passed by the elected representatives of the people of the State of Connecticut would have caused James Madison no little wonder.

2 Centuries Later

Although the implicit right to privacy has survived for over half a century, Justice Goldberg's direct appeal to the Ninth Amendment has not survived with it. More than two centuries after its ratification, the Ninth Amendment has yet to constitute the primary basis of a single Supreme Court ruling.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Ninth Amendment: Its Meaning and Ambiguity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Ninth Amendment ensures that you don't lose certain rights just because they're not specifically granted to you or mentioned elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution. It reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

# data[].attributes.body
The Ninth Amendment is basically a change made to the constitution where people of the U.S aren't violated of their basic rights. It lets people eat food, or drink water. Basic stuff that wasn't really mentioned in the Constitution. :)

# data[].attributes.body
amendment VI was proposed in 1791

It was officially added to the constitution on December 15, 1791

It was wanted by the anti-federalists who wanted to keep their rights after the decision of the constitution was proposed.

It was part of the Bill of Rights which were the rights given to Americans by the constitution.

It was added because Sir Walter Raleigh was put to death off of an unfair accusation.

The Sixth Amendment gives Americans the right to have a fair trial in court and not just immediately serve consequences. It states that we as Americans have the right to meet our witnesses and know what we’re being accused of. It makes sure we have an impartial jury and the right to have a lawyer.

# data[].attributes.headline
Aaron Tran - Eighth amendment - prevents cruel punishment and excessive penalty

# data[].attributes.subject
Aaron Tran - Eighth amendment - prevents cruel punishment and excessive penalty

# data[].attributes.body
There have been many forms of cruel and unusual punishment.

In medieval times you would be chained into a stock and publicly shamed.

You could also have one of your body parts such as an arm or a leg cut off as punishment.

The eighth amendment makes it so that these things cannot happen to us.

If it weren’t for the eighth amendment there would be many inhuman punishments used in this country

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/219us219

# data[].attributes.body
13th Amendment: this amendment abolished and prevents slavery under other names.

The Portuguese started the transatlantic slave trade.

The year that slavery started was 1619.

The slaves were first brought to Virginia.

The south used slavery on plantation where they planted crops.

Abraham Lincoln ended slavery in 1865.

# data[].attributes.body
https://legaldictionary.net/20th-amendment/#ftoc-heading-5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution concerns term limits of presidents and vice presidents of the United States, as well as those of members of Congress. Specifically, the 20th Amendment moved the beginning of the terms of the president and vice president from March 4 to January 20. It also moved the beginning of the terms of members of Congress from March 4 to January 3. The 20th Amendment also advises what to do in the event there is no president-elect. To explore this concept, consider the following 20th Amendment definition.

Definition of 20th Amendment
Noun
The amendment to the Constitution that sets the term limits for presidents, vice presidents, and members of Congress.
Origin
January 23, 1933

What is the 20th Amendment

The Constitution's 20th Amendment effectively moved the beginning and ending of the terms of the president and vice president from March 4 to January 20, and the terms of members of Congress from March 4 to January 3. For example, the 20th Amendment states:

"The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin."

The same goes for members of Congress, whose terms end at 12:00 p.m. on January 3 during the year in which their terms end. The 20th Amendment also provides that Congress is to assemble at least once a year and that, when members do assemble, they do so at 12:00 p.m. on January 3. The only way this can be changed is if a law is passed allowing them to hold Congress on a different day.

If, by chance, the president elect dies before he can begin his term, then the 20th Amendment provides for the vice president elect to become president. Similarly, if a president is not chosen before the term is to begin, or if the president elect is deemed unfit to serve as president, then the vice president is to act as president until a qualified president is chosen.

In that case, Congress can then choose the president after providing legitimate reasons as to why neither the president elect nor the vice president elect is, in its opinion, suitable for the job. The individual whom Congress chooses to act as president or vice president is to do so until the next true president or vice president is elected.

History of the 20th Amendment

The history of the 20th Amendment is based on a simple concept, which was to maximize efficiency. In September of 1788, after the final nine states had ratified the Constitution, Congress set the date of March 4 as the date when newly elected officials would begin their terms of office. This was soon discovered to be an issue, however, when the new Congress and presidential administration did not begin in their official capacities until April.

This meant that there was a long, four-month period between the election of a new president and that president's inauguration. During that time, no work could be done, and the acting president effectively became a lame duck. A lame duck is an elected official who has only a short time left in office, and whose successor has already been selected. Problems often arise when a lame duck is in office. This is due to the fact that, since a lame duck has nothing to worry about because his term is almost up and his replacement has already been chosen, he can effectively make whatever decisions he wants and suffer little to no consequence.

For instance, a lame duck could issue a controversial pardon, or sign an executive order without fear of repercussion. While this four-month, lame duck period was problematic enough in the office of the president, it was arguably worse for members of Congress. Due to the gap in scheduling dates between when members of Congress were elected and when they could actually start their jobs, some members did not get to start working until more than a year after they were elected.

This longer lame duck period may have once had a purpose at the end of the 18th century. Back then, newly elected officials might have needed several months to get their affairs in order before making a lengthy trip from their home to the nation's capital. However, in the 19th century - the early days of the history of the 20th Amendment - all this lengthy period did was serve to gum up the works of modern government, slowing or even halting the government's functionality entirely.

Even worse, having a simultaneous lame duck Congress and presidential administration meant that, if a national crisis arose, the country was unprepared to respond in a timely fashion. This would have been especially tragic if the new president, vice president, and congressional members had already been chosen, and were simply waiting for their terms to begin so they could finally be given the opportunity to do their jobs.

Two presidents in the history of the 20th Amendment knew this pain all too well: Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Both presidents had to wait four months after being elected before they and the incoming members of Congress could tackle some of the big problems affecting the country during those times. For Lincoln, it was the secession of the Southern states, and for Roosevelt, the Great Depression.

This is why the passage of the 20th Amendment changed everything. For example, the 20th Amendment reset the end dates of officials' terms, closing those previously lengthy gaps, and incoming officials could get down to business shortly after being elected. Lame ducks were also given less time in office to muck things up before their terms had officially ended.

Effects of the 20th Amendment

The effects of the 20th Amendment were welcome and positive. For example, the 20th Amendment reduced the lame duck period for the president and vice president by about 6 weeks, and removed it entirely from Congress. It also stated that, in the event that the Electoral College fails to elect the next president or vice president, then the incoming Congress will do so, rather than the outgoing one. This helps move the old folks out faster so the new folks can move in.

The effects of the 20th Amendment were especially appreciated when, 23 days after it was adopted, an assassination attempt was made on President-elect Roosevelt's life. Roosevelt was not injured, however if he had died in the attack, then the 20th Amendment provided for Vice President-elect John N. Garner to serve in his place. Roosevelt and Garner were the first President and Vice President to be elected after the adoption of the new Amendment.

One of the more interesting effects of the 20th Amendment involves Congress directly. Because of the way the terms fell, the 73rd Congress was not required to meet until January 3, 1934 - nearly a year after Roosevelt and Garner were inaugurated, on March 4, 1933. As a result, the president proclaimed that a special 100-day session of Congress was to convene from March 9 to June 16, 1933.

20th Amendment Example Involving President Obama

The 20th Amendment is a technical and straightforward one, so there do not exist many Court cases, especially at the Supreme Court level, that reference the Amendment. However, in 2009, attorney Mario Apuzzo of New Jersey filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of four individuals who wished to challenge then President Barack Obama's eligibility to be president. In addition to naming Obama as a defendant in the action, the plaintiffs also sued Congress as a singular entity, as well as its parts - the Senate and the House of Representatives - individually. Also named were former Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The defendants' reason for suing Congress was that Congress had failed to uphold the constitution by making sure that Obama was qualified to become president before approving the vote of the Electoral College that ultimately won him the election. While several lawsuits were filed challenging Obama's presidential eligibility, this one stands out for its direct reference to the 20th Amendment. This suit specifically stated that the defendants "violated" the 20th Amendment by failing to ensure that Obama first met the requirements that would determine his eligibility to hold office.

There were several reasons as to why Obama's eligibility was such a hot topic of debate. For one, many believed that Obama was not born in Hawaii but in Kenya, and that his mother was too young to make him an American citizen at the time of his birth. Other details from Obama's past added fuel to the fire, such as his family moving to Indonesia when he was a child, and contradictory reports from Obama's family members on his actual birthplace.

Several of the cases that were brought against Obama never even made it to the hearing stage, with claims being denied or outright dismissed. Others remained active at the lower court levels, despite being denied hearings by the U.S. Supreme Court. This case brought by Apuzzo was yet another case that was denied by the District Court, with the Court citing a "lack of subject matter jurisdiction " as its reasoning.

Related Legal Terms and Issues

Congress - The legislative branch of the United States federal government, composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Defendant - A party against whom a lawsuit has been filed in civil court, or who has been accused of, or charged with, a crime or offense.

Electoral College - A body of electors chosen by the voters in each state to elect the president and vice president of the U.S.

Inauguration - A formal ceremony that marks the beginning of a public official's term in office.

Plaintiff - A person who brings a legal action against another person or entity, such as in a civil lawsuit, or criminal proceedings.

Ratify - Give formal consent to something, thereby making it officially valid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
20th Amendment - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution concerns term limits of presidents and vice presidents of the United States, as well as those of members of Congress. Specifically, the 20th Amendment moved the beginning of the terms of the president and vice president from March 4 to January 20.

# data[].attributes.body
20th amendment: abolition of lame duck session in congress change date of assembly. This amendment was ratified on January 20th 1933
(January 20th Inauguration Day!)

This set the official date were president and congress could take office

It allowed the Vice President to become the leader of the president died

It shortens the period between Election Day and the time when the president and congress could take office

1. It provided new dates

2. https://legaldictionary.net/20th-amendment/#ftoc-heading-5

# data[].attributes.body
Fourteenth Amendment: Guarantee of due process and equal protection of all citizens (EQUAL) date: June 13, 1866

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.

The amendment grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States.

Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio wrote the 14th amendment.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States

# data[].attributes.headline
Aaron Wang - Amendment 4: Search and Seizure; Warrant

# data[].attributes.subject
Aaron Wang - Amendment 4: Search and Seizure; Warrant

# data[].attributes.body
Picture:

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
27th amendment: No pay increase for Senators and Representatives during current term of office. They must either be in their next term or out of office before i

# data[].attributes.headline
Ansh Kamdar - Repeal of National Prohibition: 21st amendment: Canceled the 18th amendment. Transportation of intoxicating liquors is prohibited (You can drink at 21) and was ratified on December 5, 1933. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Ansh Kamdar - Repeal of National Prohibition: 21st amendment: Canceled the 18th amendment. Transportation of intoxicating liquors is prohibited (You can drink at 21) and was ratified on December 5, 1933. 

# data[].attributes.body
- Brought an end to the 18th amendment, prohibition of alcohol.

- The 21st amendment was made when many bootleggers made illegal distribution efforts.

- During the time of the 18th amendment, billions were lost by tax revenue so the 21st amendment was passed in response to that.

- Many states outlawed the manufacturing of alcohol inside their borders

- Rise of speacheasies also caused the Congress to make the 21st amendment. These gatherings of drinks were made in places with high alcohol tolerance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For We the People listeners enjoying wine this Valentine's Day - we're exploring the still-pending Supreme Court case Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair. This lawsuit was brought by Total Wine & More, a retail liquor giant, and the Ketchums, a family who moved to Tennessee hoping to open a liquor store. Both parties were denied retail liquor licenses because they hadn't resided in Tennessee long enough. This episode examines a variety of technical but fascinating legal and constitutional questions at issue in the case, including the history of the 21st Amendment, the scope of the Dormant Commerce Clause, and the interpretation of the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities clause. Two advocates involved in the case, Michael Bindas of the Institute for Justice and John Neiman of the law firm Maynard Cooper, join host Jeffrey Rosen for a wide-ranging discussion about it.
FULL PODCAST PARTICIPANTS
Michael Bindas is a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice who is representing the respondents, the Ketchum family, in this case. He litigates in courts nationwide in cases involving freedom of speech, economic liberty, educational choice and other individual liberties, and directs IJ's National Food Freedom Initiative. Bindas was the counsel of record in this case for the respondents, the Ketchum family and Affleure Investments, the corporation through which the Ketchums own their liquor store.

John Neiman is a member of Maynard Cooper's General Litigation group and Chair of the firm's Appellate Practice Group. His practice focuses on constitutional and regulatory litigation, representing clients in courts throughout the country, and he was the former Solicitor General of Alabama. Neiman filed an amicus brief in support of petitioners in this case on behalf of the Center for Alcohol Policy.

​​​​​​Jeffrey Rosen is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Constitution Center, the only institution in America chartered by Congress "to disseminate information about the United States Constitution on a nonpartisan basis."
Additional Resources
This episode was engineered by Kevin Kilbourne and produced by Jackie McDermott. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Jackie McDermott.

Stay Connected and Learn More
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at[email protected]

Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.

Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.

Please subscribe toand our companion podcast,Live at America's Town Hall, on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
TRANSCRIPT This transcript may not be in its final form, accuracy may vary, and it may be updated or revised in the future.
Jeffrey Rosen: [00:00:00] I'm Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, and welcome to We the People, a weekly show of constitutional debate. The National Constitution Center is the only institution in America chartered by Congress to increase awareness and understanding of the Constitution among the American people and on this episode we explore the pending Supreme Court case, Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association against Blair, and in the course of that we will unpack the fascinating and often forgotten texts in the history of the twenty-first amendment. Joining us to dive into the technical, but completely fascinating, constitutional issues surrounding not only the 21st amendment for a special Valentine's Day episode, but also the dormant Commerce Clause to end any Valentine's like celebrations and the Privileges and Immunities Clause which is always an occasion for celebration and champagne toasts, are two of America's leading Supreme Court Advocates have been especially involved in the case and we're honored to have them. Michael Bendis is a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice. He litigates in courts nationwide, in court cases involving freedom of speech, economic liberty and educational choice and he directs the Institute for Justice's National Food Freedom Initiative. Michael was the counsel of record in this case for the respondents ,the Ketchum family. Michael, thank you so much for joining.

Michael Bindas: [00:01:31] Thank you for having me, Jeff.

Rosen: [00:01:33] And John Nieman is a member of the Maynard Cooper General litigation group and chair of the firm's appellate practice group. He focuses on constitutional and regulatory litigation and he was the former solicitor general of the state of Alabama. John filed an amicus brief in support of petitioners in this case, on behalf of the center for alcohol policy. John, it's great to have you with us.

John Neiman: [00:01:55] Thank you very much, jeff. Glad to be here.

Rosen: [00:01:57] Michael you argued this case. Tell us about the facts. Who are Doug and Mary Ketchum? What is their claim in the state of Tennessee? And what is the texts in history say about whether or not they should have to live in the state of Tennessee for two years before they can operate a liquor store?

Bindas: [00:02:17] Well, Doug and Mary Ketchum will go back a couple of years here back into to just that 2016 were living in Salt Lake City, Utah. They have a daughter in her 30s who is severely disabled. She is a quadriplegic. She has severe cerebral palsy and she suffered a lung collapse from the temperature inversion in the Salt Lake Valley. Doug and Mary were advised by their doctor at that point that they needed to leave the Salt Lake Valley. The air quality was not good for their daughter. She wasn't expected to live much longer. And so they started looking for an opportunity outside of Salt Lake somewhere that would be a better environment for their daughter Stacy but also an economic opportunity. The opportunity that would allow them to care for her and also enable them to support their family. And so they found this opportunity in Memphis, Tennessee. It was a retail liquor shop that was coming up for sale. And they thought this would be an excellent opportunity would give them the flexibility. They needed to care for Stacy, while also enabling them to support themselves. And so with the intention of purchasing the store, using most of their retirement funds, they applied for a liquor license in Tennessee. And that's when things started to get interesting. Tennessee has a law on the books pertaining to the licensing of retail liquor establishments retail liquor stores. These are what you would typically consider package stores. In order to get a license to own and operate one of these stores you have to have been a resident of the state for two years. You can then get a license- that license expires after one year. And then to renew it, you have to have been a resident of the state for 10 years. So you do the math here- it doesn't quite add up. And that's the very purpose of this- its to prevent outsiders, like Doug and Mary, from coming into the state and opening a store that would compete with existing retail stores in the state. Doug and Mary knew about this law before they moved out there, but they weren't concerned because the Tennessee attorney general had twice opined in 2012 and 2014 that this law was unconstitutional in violation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and because of that the state had not been enforcing it for several years. Doug and Mary were assured it would not be a problem and so they applied for the license and they were about to get it around the same time Total Wine, the national retailer, was also applying for a license in Tennessee. And they likewise were owned by out-of-state persons, but they were assured as well that this residency requirement would not be a problem for them because the state was not enforcing it. That was all fine. The licenses were being processed when lo and behold the Tennessee Wine and Spirit Retailers Association threatened to sue the state if it issued licenses to the Ketchum's and to Total Wine and at that point the State, not sure what it should do, went to court and filed an action in State Court basically asking a judge to tell the State whether or not these residency requirements were constitutional and the the real underlying question there was whether or not these Provisions violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which prohibits States from discriminating against out-of-state entities, industries or instead whether these laws were justified by the 21st Amendment of the Constitution which gives States certain power over the regulation of alcohol in in their borders. And the case was removed to Federal Court. The District Court held that these laws were unconstitutional and violate the Commerce Clause. That decision was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and at that point the Retailers Association asked the US Supreme Court to take up the case, which it did and the case was argued this past January, January 16th.

Rosen: [00:01:34] Thank you for setting us up. So well and 14 up the conflict between the Commerce Clause and the twenty-first amendment. John, can you describe the arguments about but why the Tennessee law allegedly violates the Commerce Clause or what's known as the dormant Commerce Clause which prohibits States from discriminating against out-of-staters. Tell us what the dormant Commerce Clause is and then tell us about the claim that the 21st amendment gives states such broad authority to regulate alcohol that it may represent a kind of exception to the dormant Commerce Clause prohibition on out-of-state discrimination and then tell us how you think that conflict between the two Clauses should be.

Neiman: [00:02:18] Sure. Well, I would say a couple of things about the facts of the case and the issues that are in front of the court. One really important component of all this is that the 10-year requirement for renewals for licenses is almost certainly not in front of the Court at this point in time. The petitioners in this case, the Tennessee Wine Retailers, did not seek to defend that component of the law. They did not see the Supreme Court's review of the Sixth Circuit's decision on the 10-year requirement and instead limited the question presented to whether the the two-year durational residency requirement for persons or entities that want to sell basically hard liquor in Tennessee violates the dormant Commerce Clause. That I think that reality will be very important in terms of the way that the Court decides the case and there are certainly issues about whether the Court will address the 10-year component at all, and I'm happy to talk about that in more detail a little bit later. The other component of the facts that I think is really important to understand at the outset is I don't think that it's accurate to say that the purpose of this Tennessee law was simply to prevent outsiders from competing with in-state retailers. There was a remarkable moment in the oral argument of this case in January when Justice Breyer, who is hardly thought of as sort of the history Hawk on the Court, stopped Total Wines Council Carter Philip and said effectively we have a ton of history here militating in favor of the state's ability to do precisely what it is done here with respect to a two year requirement. Justice Breyer is is not thought of as a Justice who focuses much on history. He tends to ask questions about the practical aspects of the law and pragmatic issues. So, it was quite a remarkable moment when Justice Breyer almost played the role of a Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas and said we need to focus on the history here and I think a full understanding of the facts requires us, if Justice Breyer is sort of like Doc Brown in Back to the Future, to get into the Constitutional DeLorean with Justice Breyer and go back to two really, really important dates that tell us something about the meaning of the twenty-first amendment and also its interaction with the dormant Commerce Clause. Those two dates are 1919 on the one hand and 1933 in the other. So why is 1919 important? Well, in the years leading up to that the United States had been struggling with the question of what to do about alcohol. It's kind of difficult from our vantage point in 2019 to conceive of how significant a problem alcohol was. Part of the reason why it was such a problem before 1919 is that many of the economic actors, many of the retailers who were controlling alcohol distribution in the country, at that time didn't have ties to local communities. They were focused solely on profit motives and boosting consumption by individuals and not focused on the problems that excessive drinking can uniquely have on local neighborhoods and local communities. Many states at that time responded to those economic actors by experimenting with all out prohibition, but something stood in the way and that was a little thing that you've already alluded to, Jeff, called the dormant Commerce Clause. Everybody in 1919 understood that states had virtually complete control over the way that alcohol would be distributed within their states. But under the Supreme Court's understanding of the dormant Commerce Clause at that time, it was believed that states had no control over alcohol that was shift into a state from another state. In other words, the understanding of the dormant Commerce Clause was States could not regulate alcohol in a way that affected interstate commerce. That would be a matter solely for Congress. So you had Court decisions particular from the Supreme Court holding as much, preventing States from keeping other states from shipping alcohol into their borders. So it created this unworkable system in which states on the one hand were trying to effectuate Prohibition within States or at least heavily regulate alcohol and, on the other hand, they couldn't do anything about alcohol that was coming into their states from out of state. So Congress enacted a couple of laws, federal statutes, that made clear that states could in fact turn off the TAPS in this regard and could regulate the flow of alcohol into their border, so long as they treated out-of-state alcohol the same as in-state alcohol. So that gives us the 1919 the first really important year for the purposes of the facts. In this case, I think in that year the American people said even the system that Congress had effectuated where States had some control over the interstate flow of alcohol wasn't enough. Americans said we need a national prohibition on the use of alcohol and that led to the 18th Amendment, which was ratified 100 years to the date before the parties ended up arguing at the US Supreme Court the case at hand. So what happened next over the 14 years that followed, it became apparent that the 18th Amendment had been a mistake. It wasn't that people all of a sudden decided that alcohol didn't cause a grave social problems, far from it, but it became apparent that prohibition itself wasn't feasible. People were circumventing the law through speakeasies, through organized crime and the like, so a national consensus developed around two ideas. The first is prohibitions are not going to work, but the second is that if we are going to allow alcohol, we need to regulate the heck out of it. We need to have sort of a heavy duty type of regulation that we don't see it from any other legal commodity. So that brings us to the second really important date for historical background purposes here. That's 1933. In that year the people of the United States take what is an extraordinary step of amending the Constitution, something that seems very difficult to do today. That amendment was the 21st amendment and that Amendment did two things. It effectuated the two ideas that I just discussed. At first it repealed the 18th Amendment, but it also restored the state's powers to exercise virtually complete control over the liquor markets within their particular localities. So in the wake of that Amendment, which effectively immunized State alcohol regulation from scrutiny under the dormant Commerce Clause, the States at that time tried to regulate alcohol in one of two ways. One is that they develop government-owned monopolies that would sell the alcohol themselves. We still see remnants of those monopolies in ABC Stores, which I believe control the alcohol sale. For example the sale of hard liquor at least in Pennsylvania, the state you're in, Jeff. They also control the sale of alcohol in the state I'm talking to you from, Alabama. They also control the sale of hard liquor in the state the Ketchum's lived in before they moved to, Tennessee, Utah. So that was one option States employed. Another option was to license private companies to sell alcohol for the state, but states were very careful in light of all the problems that surrounded alcohol distribution before prohibition to limit the number of licenses that would be available and also to make sure that they were very careful about whom they granted licenses to. So, nearly all of the states that adopted a licensing system at the time decided that among the qualifications for a retailer would be a residency requirement, not unlike the two-year durational residency that Tennessee imposed when it decided to go wet in 1939. So all those laws were in place for many, many years before we got to 2016 and the specific facts that gave rise to this case developed and the floor the Ketchum's company, along with Total Wine, this company that basically wants to become the Walmart of alcohol throughout the United States, challenge these provisions as violating the dormant Commerce Clause, even though they had been around for decades .

Rosen: [00:00:00] Thank you very much for taking us into the Constitutional DeLorean, as you put it, with Justice Breyer and for that great history lesson. As you know, Justice Breyer said in the oral argument today 34 states, according to my count, have rules just like this except maybe not the same number of years. So, Michael, what to make of that history and what has the court said about those 34 laws with residency requirements in the past? And what is the argument now before the court about how the text and history of the twenty-first amendment don't create an economic protectionism exception to the dormant Commerce Clause, as has one of the justices called it, but instead allow the regulation? And just in the interest of putting the text on the table because we love to do that on We the People, I will read the text of Section 2 of the 21st Amendment: 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.

Bindas: [00:01:03] And the text is certainly the first place to start in understanding the amendment ,Jeff. As Justice Alito and Justice Kavanaugh return to the text several times during the argument and focused on what it actually prohibits and that is the transportation or importation into a state of alcohol in violation of its laws. And that is what the amendment was designed primarily to do. If a state wanted to remain dry after the repeal of prohibition, it needed to ensure its ability to number one prohibit the production and sale of alcohol within the state, but also prevent out-of-state alcohol from coming in and that's what the amendment was primarily designed to do. That's a much different thing than enacting restrictive discriminatory restrictions on who can do business within the state. Now recall the ketchum's are now residents of the state of Tennessee. They have resided there since 2016. Yet, they are still being told that they cannot own and operate a liquor store in the state because they haven't lived there sufficiently long enough in the eyes of the Tennessee Wine and Spirit Retailers Association and presumably the State. Now, let's let's look at that restriction in comparison to some of those other 34 examples that that you spoke of before. Tennessee is on the extreme end of this type of restriction. One thing I didn't mention when I when I set this up at the outset, is that when it comes to a corporate applicant someone like Total Wine or a FloorInvestments, the Ketchum's company, those two and ten-year residency requirements apply, not just to the individual applicant, they apply in the case of a corporate applicant to every officer, director, and stockholder of the corporation. There are to be sure residency requirements in other states, but when you have the combination of the two and ten year requirements, that extreme durational period, as well as this 100 percent stockholder officer director component, Tennessee really is an outlier here. Now, what does the fact that these provisions exist in other states mean? It doesn't mean anything and so far as whether or not they're constitutional obviously, the existence of laws, including laws that that exist in a number of states throughout the country, is no guarantee that those laws are constitutional. Moreover, even if there was some legitimate justification for those types of laws in the 1930s, right as prohibition was repealed, any such justification no longer exists. Presumably these were enacted because back in the 1930s you didn't have such things as computerized background checks, where by the licensing Authority can very quickly assess the background of an applicant and ensure that they don't have any kind of criminal history or anything like that. We have that now, obviously, that was not available in the 1930s. And so even if you assume that the existence of these types of laws speaks to their constitutionality, the fact that they existed in the 30s speaks to their constitutionality, things have changed, circumstances have changed and the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that due to changed circumstances, a law that was constitutional at one point in the past can become unconstitutional. And so again, the existence of these laws, the fact that they were around in the early 30s, really doesn't have much to say about whether they are constitutional today. What does speak to their constitutionality today is the Supreme Court's most recent dive into this area that came back in a case called Granholm vs. Healed, back in 2005 in which the Supreme Court held that the twenty-first amendment does not somehow save or immunize a law that discriminates against out-of-state economic interests. In that case, you had a law that allowed or two laws, one in New York and one in Michigan, that allowed in-state wineries to skip directly to Consumers, but that prohibited out-of-state wineries from doing the same. Essentially, wineries in-state were allowed to act as their own retailers and send directly to consumers, but those from outside the state could not do the same. The Supreme Court held that that violated the dormant Commerce Clause because it blatantly discriminated against out-of-state economic interests. And the court went through this extensive history, the same history that John just recounted, and concluded that the 21st amendment was not meant to somehow act as a blank check enabling the states to discriminate against out-of-state actors. And in that light, it tried to reconcile the 21st amendment and the Commerce Clause and it held squarely that the non-discrimination principle of the Commerce Clause is not somehow upended by the 21st amendment, and likewise, that the twenty-first amendment cannot save a law that discriminates against interstate commerce. And so we're confident that the Court is going to apply Granholm very straightforwardly here and invalidate Tennessee's requirements, which do exactly the same thing. They discriminate against out-of-state applicants as well as newly arrived in state applicants, like Doug and Mary Ketchum, and the fact that there are some other states that have these laws on the books is neither here nor there, that doesn't mean they're constitutional. They're not and we're sure that the Supreme Court is going to hold as much.

Rosen: [00:00:02] Thank you so much for that. The Grandholm case, which you mentioned was a five to four decision with a really unusual line-up. It was Kennedy joined by Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer and the dissent was Stevens, O'Connor, Thomas, and Rehnquist suggesting the cross- partisan nature of this case. John, what is the response to Michael's suggestion that there the 21st amendment doesn't create an economic protectionism exception to the dormant Commerce Clause? Justice Kagan, during the argument, said wouldn't it be a better idea if we said the dormant Commerce Clause does apply and then let the state come back and say we can meet that test: we have real health and safety concerns and here are laws well-tailored to address those concerns. In other words, what are the actual interests aside from economic protectionism that the state is trying to achieve here and could it assert those interests under the dormant Commerce Clause?

Neiman: [00:00:57] Yeah, Jeff, I think it's really important to emphasize that the state here is not claiming, or the states that support the petitioner as well as the petitioner itself, they are not claiming that there is an economic protectionism exception to the dormant commerce clause or they're certainly not conceding that the law at issue here is protectionist. These laws had a long pedigree precisely because they were designed as of 1933 in the repeal of prohibition to make sure that the crisis of 1919 did not recur again. So in addition to the states that used licenses to use a licensing system to regulate the retail sale of hard liquor, at that point in time, almost every state adopted something called the three-tier system. This is a system in which the three tiers of alcohol distribution and production, wholesaling / distribution, and retailing are separate. If you are a manufacturer of alcohol, generally, you cannot be a distributor of alcohol. Likewise, if you are a distributor of alcohol or if you're an owner or a wholesaler who has a fleet of trucks that ships alcohol from a producer to a particular retailer, you can't own either part of the producer or any of the retailer as well. Each one of those tiers, well, particularly the wholesale and the retail tier, almost inherently have to be physically present in a state for the system to work and the Court has repeatedly recognized that a physical presence requirement for wholesalers and retailers is unquestionably legitimate in the Grandholm decision that you and Michael just mentioned. Justice Kennedy in writing the majority opinion went out of his way to say that the three-tier system is unquestionably legitimate. Justice Kennedy quoted a Justice Scalia concurrence from an earlier case called Healy, in which Justice Scalia said, of course, it would be constitutional for a state to require all alcohol to be funneled through in- state wholesalers. So there's no doubt that the Constitution in the twenty-first Amendment accountance a system in which states require alcohol to be funneled through in-state entities entities that are physically present in the state. The problem that the respondents counsel, Total Wines, counsel at oral argument faced was a barrage of questions from justices who said look and light up a history in light of all these decisions where we've said this little presence is unquestionably legitimate and and unquestionably constitutional. How can your view of what Granholm held, in other words that there can be no laws that make any distinctions between out-of-state and in-state business be a plausible one, and Total Wine had no response at all. The reason is that Granholm did not hold that all laws that make distinctions between out-of-state and in-state businesses that relate to alcohol violate the dormant Commerce Clause and are not shielded from the 21st amendment. What Granholm said, consistent, with the historical understanding of the both the dormant Commerce Clause and State's powers, was that laws that make distinctions between in-state and out-of-state products, in other words in-state and out-of-state alcohol are not shielded by the 21st Amendment. In other words, i f you have a law that says that California wine cannot be shipped to consumers within your state, but that Wisconsin wine can be- that's a problem because both the history and the jurisprudence never countenanced discrimination between products from one state and products from another. But the history and the jurisprudence from the Supreme Court had always envisioned it states would have complete control over the distribution system within the states borders and necessarily would have the power to make distinctions between in-state and out-of-state business. So, the petitioners position in this case is wholly consistent with both Grandholm and Grandholm's recognition that a three-tier system requiring presence within the state is unquestionably legitimate.

Rosen: [00:00:12] Michael, your thoughts on John's claim that Granholm and other cases give the State broad authority over distribution. And then if you can put on the table in this round the Privileges or Immunities Clause on the Institute for Justice website, you have a wonderful explainer, and you argue that laws that discriminate against newly arrived residents of any state have a tainted history, going back to the infamous Black Codes passed by Southern States after the Civil War, you and I, J, have long argued that the Privileges or Immunities Clause guarantees the right to travel freely between the states for purposes of earning a living or engaging in the ordinary occupation of life. And you say that's the right that Doug and Mary seek to exercise with their move to Tennessee. I have my scan of the transcript of the argument suggested that the words Privileges or Immunities didn't come up in the oral argument. Why was that? Were you disappointed? And why do you think that this law violates the Privileges or immunities clause here?

Bindas: [00:01:07] Well, we'll start with the the points that John was making with regard to the dormant Commerce Clause. Number one, he did try to disassociate the states' position, I'm using states plural. There were a number of states who filed supported briefs on the side of the petitioners in this case. He's trying to disassociate their position with economic protectionism, saying that they're not trying to justify this durational residency requirement on the grounds of economic protectionism, yet during the argument the attorney representing the Wine and Spirit Retailers Association as well as the solicitor general of Illinois, who is has an amicus on the same side, said unequivocally that economic protectionism is perfectly permissible and does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause when it comes to alcohol regulation, that the 21st amendment essentially removed or immunized any alcohol related law from constitutional review under the Commerce Clause, even if it was motivated solely by economic protectionism, which prompted Justice Kagan during the argument to say then "Isn't the sky the limit? Why stop at two or ten years? Can't you know the sky's the limit at that point?" And they unabashedly repeated that economic protectionism is not grounds for invalidating a law when it comes to alcohol regulation. I don't think the court countenance that extreme position. Moreover, with respect to physical presence, you know John makes the point that physical presence is almost inherently required. For example, when it comes to a wholesaler or a brick and mortar shop in a state,well Total Wine and Doug and Mary Ketchum are operating brick-and-mortar shops that are physically present in the state of Tennessee. That is not the issue here. They are both operating brick-and-mortar shops with physical presence in the state of Tennessee. The question is can the state prohibit the ownership of that physical shop based on where someone lives, or in the Ketchum case, where they used to live. And again, we don't think that the Court is going to hold that the State may do so and that's where we get to the Privileges or Immunities Clause, as what we've offered up as an alternative grounds on which the Court can affirm the Judgment of the Sixth Circuit in validating the durational residency requirements. The Privileges or Immunities Clause was enacted as part of the 14th Amendment and it was designed in large part to ensure that Southern states could not pass laws like the Black Codes, what are commonly now referred to as the Black Codes, laws that in the wake of the abolition of slavery the Southern states use to erect barriers to the ability of the freedmen as well as their Northern supporters to move to and around the South in pursuit of a living. There are a number of types of statutes that were very common in the Southern States before ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment that were designed precisely to impede the mobility of the freedmen and ensure that they would be quote "kept in their place", both literally and figuratively figuratively. The idea was you now had a free and mobile black labor force in the United States. The former southern plantation owner saw that as a threat an economic threat to them and so they convinced their buddies in the State Legislatures in the South to pass these types of laws that would restrict the mobility of the freedmen and prevent them from earning an honest living on equal terms with other residents of the South and the history is replete with examples of these types of laws and the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment as well as some of the Congressional statutes that preceded it, made clear that one of the overriding purposes of the Privileges or Immunities Clause was to ensure that Southern States could no longer do this. And so we have argued that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects the right of folks like Doug and Mary to move about the nation freely and that they have a right as citizens of this nation to move to any state and to earn an honest living in that state regardless of their state of origin. And most recently, in 1999 the US Supreme Court ruled in a case called Saenz vs. Roe that a one-year durational residency requirement for for full welfare benefits in California was unconstitutional because it violated the Privileges or Immunities Clause. And as the Court made clear in that case, it has always been common ground that the Clause protects the right of the newly-arrived citizen in a state to be treated on equal terms with other residents of that state and we've argued that if the Clause protects the right to be treated equally in connection with welfare benefits, then surely it protects the right to be treated equally in connection with the ability to earn an honest living now. As you know, Jeff, that the Clause did not come up during the argument. We're not surprised by that. Number one, one of the champions of the Clause is Justice Thomas and Justice Thomas is, as your listeners probably know, not the most active questioner on the bench. And so to the extent that there is interest on this issue, I think you know it would certainly be of interest to him and as is usually the case in oral arguments, he did not ask any questions regarding this or any other issue in the case. Nevertheless, we know that he's interested in it. He has long sought to reinvigorate the Clause as the primary bulwark for the economic liberty and freedom of America. And we're hopeful that that he, and possibly some of the other justices, will take this as an occasion to expand on the history of the Privileges or Immunities Clause and its purpose in preventing these types of barriers that impede the ability of American citizens to migrate to a new state and earn an honest living when they arrive there. So, you know, we'll have to wait and see whether there's discussion of it in any of the opinions from the justices, but in any event, it is an alternative ground on which the court can and should uphold or affirm the judgment of the Sixth Circuit in validating the residency requirements.

Rosen: [00:02:31] John, what would be the consequences of striking down Tennessee's residency requirement under the Privileges or Immunities Clause or under the dormant Commerce Clause? You vividly talked about the desire to become the Walmart of liquor. Justice Gorsuch, in the oral argument, of course, as you know, said "Isn't the next business model to try to operate as the Amazon of liquor?" Do you believe that invalidation of this requirement, especially under the Privileges or Immunities Clause as a kind of economic protectionism, would strike down much of the regulatory apparatus of liquor in the United States and allow for Amazon's or Walmarts of liquor to flourish?

Neiman: [00:00:12] Total Wines lawyer certainly offered the Justices no course of action that would have struck down the Tennessee durational residency requirement and not open the doors to striking down all sorts of other State laws that the Court has said are unquestionably legitimate, including requirements that a store be physically present within a state. Now, I think it's important to separate out the Privileges or Immunities issue from the dormant Commerce Clause issue in the case. I'm always hesitant to make predictions with any degree of confidence about what the Court is going to do, but I feel 100 percent confident that the majority of the Court will not rely on the Privileges or Immunities Clause in this case. It's a fascinating clause. I admire the work that the Institute for Justice, Michael's shop, has done in sort of teasing out the implications of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, which has been long buried in constitutional jurisprudence. I admire the work they've done in teasing them out. I should say with respect to other areas of the law, not necessarily alcohol regulation, a procedural problem in this case is that the implications were not teased out in this litigation until far too late a stage in the case. So the Privileges or Immunities Clause was not only not discussed by the lower courts, it was not raised by the parties below and it seems inconceivable to me that the Court will breathe life into the privileges and immunities clause at this stage of the case without any lower courts having done any briefing. At ward discussion of the issue and in fact, if you look at the petitioners briefs in this case, they largely just ignored the Privileges or Immunities question altogether, so we don't have a lot of briefing or argument on the issue. All that said, while again, I admire a lot of the work that the Institute for Justice has done in exploring the contours of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the claim in this case strikes me as an especially weak claim. Let's be clear about what Tennessee told the Ketchum's that they could and could not do. On the one hand, Utah told the Ketchum's is that they could not open up a store selling hard liquor. But that in Utah, that is a Government monopoly, and the Ketchum's had no ability to sell hard liquor in that state likewise. Tennessee did not tell the Ketchum's, "If you move to Tennessee, the economic doors of the state will be closed to you." They didn't even say you can't open up a beer shop. You can't open up a wine shop. They didn't even say you can't open up a bar. The only kind of business that Tennessee informed the Ketchum's that they would not be able to do or at least the Tennessee statutes, I suppose, told the Ketchum's they would not be able to engage in, was a store that sold hard liquor. That was the one area of the law in which Tennessee statutes had carried over the project of 1933 in terms of being very careful about granting licenses granting relatively few licenses and making sure that the people who possess the licenses, or the companies that possess the licenses, have been in the state long enough to understand the norms that govern in the state and have been in the state long enough to give Tennessee the ability to assess their ability to sell hard liquor in a consistent way with the manner in which Tennessee has approached the issue. So, whereas in a case like Saenz v. Roe, California's durational residency requirement regarding welfare benefits made it practically impossible for someone who is dependent on welfare benefits to move to California. Tennessee's law, creating a very narrow durational residency requirement with respect to a very narrow sliver of the alcohol industry, did not create any sort of barrier in preventing anyone from moving to the state and making a living in some way. It seems unlikely to me that, even if this issue eventually gets raised in a procedurally appropriate way, that it will stand as a barrier to durational residency requirements, like the one that Tennessee is defending here. And with respect to the dormant Commerce Clause, seems to me, I can understand why some of the parties in the case attempted to inject the Privileges or immunities clause issue into the case because the dormant Commerce Clause argument simply was inconsistent with everything the Court has said about the unquestioned legitimacy of physical presence. In the past, if the respondents were able to offer a persuasive argument to the Court that the dormant Commerce Clause could forbid durational residency requirements without forbidding physical presence requirements, they would have done so, but to this day we've seen nothing in the briefs or nothing at the oral argument, in which the respondents to the case of explained how durational residency requirements can be unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause because they discriminate. Yet, physical presence requirements are not unconstitutional because even though they discriminate as well.

Rosen: [00:00:31] Michael, what's your response to why you believe that physical presence requirements might be constitutional but not durational requirements? And then handicapping this case is unusually hard we know from Granholm that Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas were on opposite sides. So, it's an unusually non-ideological case, but if the Court were to strike down the requirements, who do you think would be in the majority on what grounds?

Bindas: [00:01:01] Well, with respect to physical presence versus durational residency requirement, you know, obviously the physical presence issue is not involved in this case. It's well beyond a physical presence. But you know I can imagine reasons why a State might be able to credibly claim that physical presence for certain aspects of alcohol distribution is necessary. Now recall that the test for whether or not a law violates the dormant Commerce Clause is whether the State has a legitimate local interest that could not be served through a reasonable non-discriminatory mechanism. You know, perhaps the State would have a sufficiently convincing argument, for example, that a physical warehouse is needed for wholesalers so that the State can inspect the product, tax the product, etc. And that it could justify that and argue that you know absent having that physical presence, we couldn't adequately achieve those things that we need to achieve, but that is a much different thing than what we have going on here, which is where the State is again. We're talking about brick and mortar retail shops. Total Wine and the Ketchum's are operating brick-and-mortar shops with physical presence, but the State is attempting to regulate it based on where people have lived in the past. That is a much different thing and I don't think the state has any justification, much less a sufficiently important one, for requiring two or ten years presence in the state in order to operate a shop. I just see the physical presence scenario as something wholly different and as for a line-up with the with the Court, I'm not about to try to predict where this is going to go. You know Granholm ,as you mentioned Jeff, was ideologically an interesting lineup, perhaps strange bedfellows on either side of that of that case, which as you noted, was a 5-4 decision. You know, I personally don't think this will be a close case in the sense of a 5-4 type decision. I think our side will prevail and I think it'll be a much bigger margin and at the end of the day the fact that there was an unusual ideological line up in Granholm, and I anticipate we may see that here as well, it shouldn't be surprising because whether or not a State can discriminate against newly arrived residents, based on the fact that they move there from some other state, should not be an ideologically liberal or conservative issue. I think all Justices recognized that that type of discrimination against newly arrived residents or out-of-staters, for that matter, is obnoxious, too. The Commerce Clause to the Privileges or Immunities clause and I think a majority of the court is going to say that the twenty-first amendment can't the can's save a violation of either of those clauses.

Rosen: [00:00:58] John, your thoughts on what the line-up might be and use it to educate our listeners about the different methodological approaches of the justices. What might an originalist hold? How about someone who cares about history and precedent, or the courts legitimacy given all those considerations? How do you think the court might rule?

Neiman: [00:01:19] I think Michael and I agree wholeheartedly that we're very uncomfortable making predictions about line-ups. So I think I'm going to dodge the question respectfully in the same way that he did. I will make some predictions about what factors might motivate the Justices to decide the case in particular ways, I think the first really important factor here is the one I adverted to in at the beginning of this podcast regarding history. At some point in the respondent's argument, Justice Breyer who generally doesn't focus all that much on history, took us for a ride in that constitutional DeLorean talking about the history of these particular kinds of requirements and also the history associated with State regulation of alcohol. I think it's very difficult for the respondents in this case, and then for any justice who would be sympathetic to their side, to reconcile the position that these sorts of durational residency requirements violate the dormant Commerce Clause with the history that unfolded around not only the ratification of 21st amendment in 1933, but the steps that States took in the immediate wake of ratification to effectuate the goals of temperance that everybody wanted to achieve. States in 1933 thought that durational residency requirements were something the twenty-first Amendment authorized them to do. Then it seems implausible that whatever what I should say, that's a very compelling reason to think that in fact the 21st amendment did authorize the states to do so, especially since those kinds of requirements have gone on question now for decades. The other issue I think that seems to be driving and number of the Justices towards the end of respondent's arguments, and I'm thinking about Justice Gorsuch, Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Kagan, was this question of how the respondents could possibly reconcile the principle they wanted the Court to adopt with the Courts clear statements that in-state presence requirements are permissible and unquestioningly legitimate under the 21st amendment. I think it's very telling that when asked to distinguish physical presence requirements from durational residency requirements, Michael during this podcast did not say "Well, physical presence requirements are shielded from dormant Commerce Clause under the 21st amendment." His suggestion was "perhaps the dormant Commerce Clause inquiry would come out differently for physical presence requirements." That is not what the Court has said either in Granholm or in the cases before it. In those cases, the Court has said that those requirements are unquestionably legitimate. In other words, there really doesn't need to be a dormant Commerce Clause inquiry into whether there is a less restrictive means of effectuating the state's goals. A temperance physical presence requirements are unquestionably legitimate because they're authorized by the twenty-first Amendment to this day. Total Wine and the other respondents have not offered a principle under which the twenty-first Amendment would Shield physical presence requirements as it does and somehow not shield durational residency requirements from the same sort of dormant Commerce Clause inquiry. So I think the Justices were focused both on the history and also the need to reconcile the Court's repeated statements about the unquestioned legitimacy of the three-tier system, and physical presence requirements will lean heavily in favor of reversing the Sixth Circuit, telling the Sixth Circuit that the broad anti-discrimination principle that it adopted in this case does not accurately reflect either Granholm or the 24th and First Amendment jurisprudence generally and require the Sixth Circuit to reconsider in light of the more narrow scope of the Granholm holding, focus solely on discrimination against out-of-state products rather than out-of-state entities.

Rosen: [00:02:07] Many thanks for that. Well, it is time for closing arguments in this excellent discussion. This is the time in just a few sentences to make your case and try to persuade our listeners of your constitutional argument. So, Michael, the first closing argument is to you. Why do you believe that the Tennessee residency requirement violates the Constitution and why should the Court strike it down?

Bindas: [00:02:32] Simply put, because Americans have a right as citizens of this nation to move to any state and to earn an honest living in it, regardless of their state of origin. No State can punish a citizen for having moved. No State can discriminate against its own residents simply because they moved from some other state, like the Ketchum's did. The Privileges or Immunities clause, as well as the Commerce Clause, prohibits that kind of discrimination and the 21st Amendment is not a blank check for the states to engage in that kind of discriminatory legislation.

Rosen: [00:00:15] Thank you so much for that and, John, last word to you. Why do you believe the Tennessee residency requirement does not violate the Constitution and why should the court uphold it?

Neiman: [00:00:24] I said at the outset that it's a little difficult from our vantage point here in 2019 to truly understand the crisis that the country faced in 1919 and again in 1933 when the people of the country took the unusual step of enacting two Constitutional Amendments. Dealing with a specific commodity, this being alcohol, I largely agree with almost everything michael says about the ability of citizens to earn an honest living and for the importance of States following a non-discrimination principle, but what the lesson of 1919 and 1933 was that alcohol was a unique product, unlike any other product. It wasn't to be treated like men. It wasn't to be treated like books. It required drastic solutions that involved States, having as the Court has said over and over again, virtually complete control over the distribution systems within their borders. That means that in this very limited industry with respect to this very limited commodity, States have a certain leeway to ensure that the public health dangers that are posed by alcohol do not present themselves, to ensure that the crisis of 1919 and the crisis of 1933 does not arise again and to ensure that this product, which can pose dangers if not regulated carefully, would be controlled and that the goals of temperance of 1933 would be fulfilled. So, in this very narrow area of the economy, in this very narrow sector, the state's decision to impose a reasonable durational residency requirement before allowing people to engage in this very limited activity is justified and constitutional.

Rosen: [00:00:05] Thank you so much Michael Bendas and John Neiman for opening the spigot of reason on the 21st amendment, the dormant Commerce Clause, and the Privileges or Immunities Clause. This has been an effervescent conversation about the intersection of those three amendments and you've given our listeners much to learn more about. Michael, thank you so much for joining.

Bindas: [00:00:29] Thank you for having us.

Neiman: [00:00:31] Thank you.

Rosen: [00:00:32] Today's show was engineered by Kevin Kilburn and produced by Jackie McDermott. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Jackie McDermott. Dear We the People listeners, for homework this week, here's a wonderful read and it's Daniel Okrent's "Last call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition." It was such a fascinating story about how the 18th Amendment, which had such intense national support in 1919, was re-pealed by the 21st Amendment, which had equally intense National support by 1933 and okrent tells the story in a great narrative that I know you'll enjoy. If you feel moved to learn more, please rate, review and subscribe to We the People on Apple podcast and recommend the show to friends or colleagues or write to me to tell me what you think of it and how we can improve. Your emails are greatly appreciated and thanks so much to those of you who writing over the past couple weeks and remember always when you waken, when you sleep, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit. We receive little government support and we rely on the passion, engagement, reasoned wonkery and love of lifelong learning of all of you who are listening to this podcast and educating yourself about the Constitution. So to allow us to continue to do our work, join as a member and the way to do that is to visit Constitutioncenter.org/donate to learn more. On behalf of the National Constitution Center, I'm Jeffrey Rosen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Tennessee Wine Case and the 21st Amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For We the People listeners enjoying wine this Valentine's Day - we're exploring the still-pending Supreme Court case Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair. This lawsuit was brought by Total Wine & More, a retail liquor giant, and the Ketchums, a family who moved to Tennessee hoping to open a liquor store.

# data[].attributes.headline
Amendment 26: Voting age lowered to eighteen years in 1891. (18+8)

# data[].attributes.subject
Amendment 26: Voting age lowered to eighteen years in 1891. (18+8)

# data[].attributes.body
- The amendment was demanded during the Vietnam war.
- 18 year olds were called to fight in the war.
- The people found it unfair there was no voting rights for 18 year olds but the could fight.
- President Richard Nixon signed the 26th amendment
- 18 year olds can vote now.
There was a Supreme Court case after the amendment released of a few states thought this violated the 10th amendment. Supreme Court ruled in favour of the federal government passing this reasoning “The Court held that Congress had the power to enact the amendments that changed the voting age for federal elections.”

CNN celebrating the 50th anniversary of the amendment. https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/01/politics/26th-amendment-50th-anniversary/index.html

# data[].attributes.body
The Eleventh Amendment restricts the ability of individuals to bring suit against states in federal court. February 7, 1795

# data[].attributes.body
The 18th amendment was passed because men excessively drank alcohol which caused some problems in the community. The people looked towards the votes of woman to figure this out. After, when the 21st amendment was passed, alcohol consumption dropped by 30%.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why the Repeal of Prohibition Actually Made It Harder to Get a Drink

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Prohibition did change the way Americans drank, an expert explains-but its effects were probably not the ones you'd expect.

# data[].attributes.body
The tenth amendments purpose is to not give the government too much power and equally distribute power among states

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A multimedia judicial archive of the Supreme Court of the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | The 12th Amendment’s Dangerous Defect

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What if it had been up to Congress to choose the president Jan. 6?

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cantonrep.com/article/20130512/News/305129922

# data[].attributes.body
Preston Graham

# data[].attributes.headline
Election of President and Vice President(separate elections for #1 guy and #2 guy) June 15, 1804

# data[].attributes.subject
Election of President and Vice President(separate elections for #1 guy and #2 guy) June 15, 1804

# data[].attributes.body
-separated elections of President and Vice President
-makes runner-up not VP
-President and VP can’t be from the same state
-same requirements for President and VP
-VP steps in for President if President declares himself unfit

# data[].attributes.headline
Anika Mohapatra- National Prohibition of Intoxicating Liquors, Don’t drink until 18, published in 1919

# data[].attributes.subject
Anika Mohapatra- National Prohibition of Intoxicating Liquors, Don’t drink until 18, published in 1919

# data[].attributes.body
5 historical facts:

-World War I helped turn the nation in favor of the Prohibition because advocates argued that the barley used for brewing beer could be made into bread to feed American soldiers.

-It actually wasn’t illegal to drink alcohol during Prohibition  but rather the 18th amendment foraged the “manufacture, sale and transportation of intoxicating liquors”.

-The Great Depression helped Prohibition get repealed. During the Great Depression, anti-Prohibition activists argued that the potential savings and tax refund from alcohol were too grand to ignore. The public agreed so when Frank D. Roosevelt called for a repeal he won the 1932 election.

-The 18th amendment was later repealed by the 21st amendment (you can’t drink until 21) which was passed by Congress on February 20, 1933. It was officially ratified on December 5, 1933.

-The 18th amendment was created to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses,  improve health and hygiene, and ect.

# data[].attributes.headline
First Amendment: Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition (free SPARP) date Dec 15th, 1791

# data[].attributes.subject
First Amendment: Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition (free SPARP) date Dec 15th, 1791

# data[].attributes.body
*The government cannot stop people from saying (Speech) or printing (Press) what they think or believe.
*The government cannot stop criticism of it.
*A group can gather (Assemble) peacefully to debate what the government does.
*The government cannot tell someone how or how not to worship. (Religion)
*The people can (Petition) the government to address their grievances (problems)

# data[].attributes.body
History of the First Amendment

# data[].attributes.body
News: Does First Amendment freedom of speech apply to social media?
Many constitutional lawyers have argued that the first amendment does not protect freedom of speech when it is published on a company owned site. In that case the private company like (Facebook, Twitter) have the right to set parameters or guidelines on what cannot be published, hate speech etc. The first amendment mostly protects the people from government attack against of their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
RICHMOND, Va. (WWBT) - Twitter has defined the voice of the Trump Administration for the past four years, but after Wednesday's deadly insurgence at the US Capitol, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have permanently banned the president.

Virginia Senator Amanda Chase is facing similar suspensions from Facebook after the social media giant says she spread false claims about the riots. The move is drawing criticism from Trump, Chase, and others who are calling the decision a violation of free speech. But VCU constitutional law expert, Dr. John Aughenbaugh, says that isn't the case.

"What Twitter did does not violate the First Amendment of the constitution," Aughenbaugh said. "The First Amendment applies to the government, and Twitter or Facebook, or any other social media platform, by and large, is a private sector actor and therefore the First Amendment does not apply."

Aughenbaugh says even without social media, the government isn't stopping anyone from expressing free speech elsewhere.

The president can go the streets, issue a press release, call up his friends talk to supporters, sure. The government is not stopping the president or anyone else for that matter," Aughenbaugh said.

In addition, by using platforms like Twitter or Facebook, Augenbaugh says you are also agreeing to their terms of the agreement.

"In joining or using the platform, you agree to certain conditions. And if you don't, the platform can ban you," Aughenbaugh said.

Because so many people specifically use social media to express their voice, Aughenbaugh says Twitter and Facebook's actions raise important questions.

"What's the purpose of social media?" Aughenbaugh said. "Is it supposed to be an echo-chamber where you get to hear your voice and your platform? Or is the purpose of any social media platform to be exposed to ideas that are different from yours that you may possibly not like? So, what are you willing to trade-off?"
Copyright 2021 WWBT. All rights reserved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'First Amendment does not apply': Law expert says Trump's social media ban is constitutional

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
RICHMOND, Va. (WWBT) - Twitter has defined the voice of the Trump Administration for the past four years, but after Wednesday's deadly insurgence at the US Capitol, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have permanently banned the president. Virginia Senator Amanda Chase is facing similar suspensions from Facebook after the social media giant says she spread false claims about the riots.

# data[].attributes.body
The eighth amendment protects us everyday. It protects us from a cop pulling us over and fining us for 50,000 because of speeding.

# data[].attributes.body
History of the 18th amendment

# data[].attributes.headline
News story: Prohibition: US activists fight for temperance 100 years on

# data[].attributes.subject
News story: Prohibition: US activists fight for temperance 100 years on

# data[].attributes.body
Even though the 18th amendment had been repealed over 100 years ago, there are still some groups that are encouraging and fighting for Prohibition. Groups like like the Prohibition group, Methodists, women, and certain religious groups have been pushing for an alcohol ban. They claim that money was being used irresponsibly and that alcohol can make abusive people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It is 100 years to the day since Prohibition came into effect. The 18th Amendment to the Constitution banned anyone in the US from selling, making, importing or even transporting alcohol.

Criminal gangs immediately took over the industry. Speakeasies sprung up nationwide to sell illegal liquor and tens of millions flouted the legislation.

By 1933 it had been repealed - the only instance when a constitutional amendment has been overturned in this way.

Prohibition is now viewed as a failure. No major political parties or organisations support its return, and there is little public support for such an extreme response in the future.

But alcohol remains controversial in the US. The drinking age of 21 is higher than in other nations where drinking is legal. Dry counties and dry towns - where alcohol sales are restricted or barred outright - are dotted throughout the country. And Gallup polling from last year shows that nearly one fifth of respondents said drinking alcohol was "morally wrong".

A century on, a small group of Americans are fighting to keep the dream of the so-called "noble experiment" alive.

"You should think of the Prohibition Party as an exercise in living history," says Jim Hedges, treasurer to the party, which is the third-oldest in the US.

"We're trying to keep the concept alive and the history alive," he tells the BBC. "But as far as getting big enough to have influence, it's not going to happen any time soon."

The US temperance movement, which sought to control or even ban alcohol sales, developed through the 19th Century. Campaigners focused on the perceived immorality of drinking as well as the health effects. Religious groups like Methodists and later organisations like the Anti-Saloon League helped bring about the law change.

Dr Julia Guarneri, senior lecturer in US history at the University of Cambridge, tells the BBC that women's groups - in particular the Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) - were vital in bringing about prohibition.

"They thought alcohol was one way that money went from the employer to the employee to the saloon, and never reached the family," Dr Guarneri says. Women and children were also victims of abuse from alcoholic husbands and fathers.

As reformers pushed for women's right to vote - ratified in the 19th Amendment, which was officially adopted just eight months after Prohibition took effect - women activists also sought to ban alcohol, seeing it as another way that women were oppressed in society.

"There's more of a connect between those two pieces of legislation than you might think," Dr Guarneri says. "The WCTU saw the banning of alcohol as a way both to keep families happier and healthier, and women happier and healthier."

Worries about the large numbers of immigrants coming to US shores at the end of the 19th and early 20th Centuries - in particular Catholics and Jews travelling from southern and eastern Europe - were another factor.

Some European Catholics in particular brought a beer-drinking culture to the US which was alien to its Protestant populations. But on top of this, both Catholics and Jews incorporate alcohol in their religious rituals. While these ceremonies were still allowed during prohibition, Dr Guarneri says that alcohol "became a way to police and oppress those immigrant populations".

The start of World War I further helped the temperance movement. Campaigners won support arguing that grains should be used for food rather than for beer during the conflict, while German immigrants or their descendants owned many of the breweries.

"So it was very easy to paint a portrait of alcohol being un-American," Dr Guarneri says. "You name it - Pabst, Schlitz, Budweiser... there wasn't going to be a lot of public sympathy for the owners of the breweries from the US."

But Prohibition was widely flouted. Many Americans, particularly the wealthy and the privileged, dodged the law with ease. President Warren Harding is said to have openly served alcohol confiscated by his government at the White House.

The law grew more and more unpopular. Politicians also missed the tax revenue from alcohol sales after the Wall Street Crash of 1929. Franklin Roosevelt promised to repeal the measure in his bid for the presidency in 1932, and within a year of him coming to office, national prohibition was dead.

Sarah Ward, former president of the WCTU, tells the BBC that Prohibition "probably did our organisation more harm than good after the repeal".

To join the WCTU, applicants must pledge to avoid alcohol and pay membership dues. Ms Ward signed up as a teenager in the 1950s, and has kept that pledge to this day.

She spent decades teaching people about the health impact of alcohol, and says she is proud of that work. But she said the current state of the temperance movement in the US was "very discouraging".

"We can always hope that somebody will realise and a corner will be turned and that'll be great if it happens," Ms Ward says - although she thinks members of the WCTU are "more realistic" now.

"Today, as far as Prohibition is concerned, we will have that when each individual makes the choice that that is the best way for them to live," she said. "We can't get restrictions on anything. Everybody wants to be free and do their own thing."

Prohibition Party treasurer Jim Hedges agrees. Mr Hedges was the party's presidential candidate in 2016 when they took just 5,600 votes nationwide - albeit far more than the 518 they won in 2012, and their best result since 1988. He says the party would like to see a "sea change" of public opinion to allow the return of national prohibition.

"If we were to try to impose that from the top down without having public support, it would be unenforceable," he says. Their plan this year is to focus on states which have easier rules for smaller parties to get on the ballot.

Phil Collins, the party's 2020 nominee, hopes they can get on the ballot in Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee.

"Four years ago the party was on the ballot in only three states. And this time it'll be five states," he tells the BBC. "So I'm sure we'll get more votes than we did then."

Dry counties and towns, and so-called "blue laws" - restrictions on when and where you can buy alcohol, for example on a Sunday or after a certain time at night - exist across the US.

But the general trend is for more liberalisation. Massachusetts had about 20 wholly dry towns in the year 2000, but several have started to allow the sale of alcohol - albeit in restricted ways.

The town of Rockport was dry from 1856, when organiser Hannah Jumper rallied women to attack liquor-serving establishments with hatchets. A referendum in 2005 finally granted restaurants the right to serve alcohol with meals, but it was only in 2019 - close to 162 years after the infamous "Hatchet Gang" raid - that the town granted its first retail licence to sell alcohol.

Jay Smith tells the BBC that after the town's only grocery store closed, the community decided to grant a licence to the first person to open a store in Rockport. His family opened the Whistlestop Market, which sells beer and wine at a mall by the train station.

Mr Smith says the town has been overwhelmingly supportive, barring "maybe one or two people [who] have let us know that they're against it." But ultimately, he says it is a matter of personal choice.

"I think Prohibition was a response to the difficulties of alcohol. Though we sell alcohol, we're for responsible use," he says. "People can have a personal or philosophical attitude against alcohol - I can't argue against that. That's their personal choice and that's what's right for them."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Prohibition: US activists fight for temperance 100 years on

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It is 100 years to the day since Prohibition came into effect. The 18th Amendment to the Constitution banned anyone in the US from selling, making, importing or even transporting alcohol. Criminal gangs immediately took over the industry. Speakeasies sprung up nationwide to sell illegal liquor and tens of millions flouted the legislation.