Talk:Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject United States Constitution (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Constitution, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Constitution on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is about one (or many) thing(s).

Why didn't it just say "Congress shall have the power to prohibit..."?[edit]

What good my dudes all you need to know is that the 18Th ammndment was really bad during the 1920's.


The section on the impact of the 18th amendment is one sided. It leaves out the fact that prohibition did succeed in significantly reducing alcohol consumption, not just during, but after as well. It also overlooks the evidence that though alcohol traffic related crimes had increased, crime as a whole had significantly decreased; especially with the crimes most linked to the effects of alcohol. Furthermore, that it was actually after prohibition ended that there was a real increase in crime. Evidence example; Temperance Facts, compiled by W.G. Calderwood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yelekam (talkcontribs) 02:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


Someone might look at this section, which has, as its sole citation, a booklet published around 1941-44 by the Minnesota Temperance Movement - hardly an unbiased source. Marjaliisa (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Oops, sorry, the Impact section is the one I meant..... Marjaliisa (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This has not been addressed but needs to. This is not an RS. Deleting referenced text. Please bring here to discuss if reverted. (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


Did Connecticut ratify this or not? They are listed as one of two states to reject the amendment but also as the 46th state to ratify it. --Shawn K. Quinn (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

This is surprisingly hard to find a reliable source for. A lot sites say it didn't but I can't find anything that doesn't convince me it didn't get its information from Wikipedia.
On HeinOnline, I have a snippet of a law review article that, as far as I can tell, says it did not ratify. Alas, my Hein subscription does not allow me to see the full article to get all the context. Does anyone have access to the Connecticut Bar Journal? The quote, as much as I have:
...failure to ratify the Eighteenth Amendment as evidence of her rugged insistence upon the rights of the... controversial amendments came later. Connecticut, it is to be noted, did not ratify the Bill of Rights. This...
Annual Meeting of the State Bar Association of Connecticut [notes]; Connecticut Bar Journal, Vol. 7, Issue 3 (1933), pp. 91-160. 7 Conn. B.J. 91 (1933).
TJRC (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Aha! No, it did not:
" took until 1922 for the forty-sixth state, New Jersey, to ratify, and Connecticut and Rhode Island would never do so." Henry S. Cohn & Ethan Davis, Stopping the Wind that Blows and the Rivers that Run: Connecticut and Rhode Island Reject the Prohibition Amendment, 27. Quinnipac L. Rev. 327, 328 (2009).
I will revise the article. TJRC (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I've now revised the article. I dropped as a source; it seems to be just a web site run by an ordinary guy, nothing authoritative, and I think he just mistranscribed something. The claim that Connecticut ratified is contrary to the official Senate document that's used as a reference as well as the very thoroughly researched law review article I cite above (and also added as a source). TJRC (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

=This is incoherent[edit]

QUOTE: Woodrow Wilson: Which was the 28th President of the United States, he vetoed the 18th Amendment which was later ratified by congress and was called the Volstead Act. Which was enacted to carry out the Intent of the 18th Amendment.[2] President Wilson was the one that introduced the National Prohibition Act, also known as the Volstead Act. This act implemented the banning of alcoholic beverages as well as the production and the distribution of the beverages. This law was passed on July 22, 1919 with a vote of 287 to 100. Not too long after, the law was repealed with the passage of the 21st amendment to the Constitution. UNQUOTE Woodrow Wilson is a "who", not a "which". Presidents can't veto Constitutional Amendments. Then it says "President Wilson was the one that introduced the National Prohibition Act, also known as the Volstead Act." Um, are "introduce" and "veto" the same thing? They aren't. The Volstead act was introduced by Representative Andrew Volstead. I don't know how it was introduced in the Senate. Wilson didn't INTRODUCE the Volstead Act, but vetoed it (did NOT veto the 18th Amendment, couldn't), and got overridden. Whoever wrote this believes that the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act are the same thing. They are not. The 18th Amendment is what made it Constitutional for the houses of Congress to pass bills like the Volstead Act, which bills, if signed by the President or vetoed by the President but overridden, could not later be ruled un-Constitutional if such bills dealt on with the matters that the 18th Amendment lays out, because the 18th Amendment makes them specifically Constitutional. For instance the Supreme Court couldn't toss the Volstead Act on grounds of states' rights or inalienable personal liberty, since the 18th Amendment specifically empowers the Federal Government to trod on states' rights and individual liberty in these narrowly-confined matters. One thing that was required was legislation to define the Constitution's vague reference to "intoxicating", and that's done in the Volstead Act, not the Amendment. They are two different things. And whoever wrote this uses an informal style in which it is permissible to begin sentences with "which". Which is not the style for an encyclopedia.2604:2000:C682:2D00:146:7506:94D4:E2EB (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

This is not just incoherent, it's a mess.[edit]

To give just one example, take this sentence and footnote:

"Just after the Eighteenth Amendment's adoption, there was a significant reduction in alcohol consumption among the general public and particularly among low-income groups. There were less hospitalizations for alcoholism and less liver-related medical problems. However, consumption soon climbed as underworld entrepreneurs began producing "rotgut" alcohol which was full of dangerous diseases.[31]"

It is not possible for an educated adult to write that alcohol of any kind can be full of diseases, dangerous or otherwise. The sentence would make sense if the word 'diseases' was replaced by 'additives'. However, we cannot know if that was the writer's intent, or if it reflects information contained in the sourcing footnote.

One's next step might be to examine the footnote. Footnote 31 is a link to a article:

This article does not address the question of additives in 'rotgut' liquor. But something even more worriesome becomes apparent: There is considerable and literal overlap between this article and the wikipedia article. Which came first, one would like to know? Is the Wikipedia article cloning the article, or is it a case of vice versa? Regardless, a footnote cannot be valid if it merely refers to identical text published elsewhere. In any case, the question of rotgut is not addressed.

This is but one example indicating that this article is in need of drastic editing by a competent historian. Busterbarker2008 (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)