Skip to main content

View Diary: Even Lou Dobbs believes in the 14th amendment (139 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Redefining abstinence as temperance (0+ / 0-)

    I hear great things about that book; its on my reading list. History courses, particularly those in high school, strive to be passionless. When the subject is something that aroused great passion, the real history gets lost somewhere. A Billy Sunday demon rum diatribe gets truncated to a suggestion.

    One of the greatest parallels I see, is the attempt to change the language so the choices aren't so stark. Calling abstinence temperance is a lot like calling anti-abortion pro-life.

    If it were true, they couldn't say it on Fox News. -6.62 -5.90

    by PBCliberal on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 11:19:06 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The book is entertaining as well as informative (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PBCliberal

      Very much both.  The fight for Prohibition did evolve over time to become near-total prohibition (but the Volstead Act did allow home production of a rather large amount of fermented cider and 200 gallons of wine per family).  Also sacramental wine, a loophole hilariously exploited by "paper rabbis".  It was largely a movement of rural and small-town WASPs and was hated by the aristocracy and most immigrant populations.  Rich Southerners voted for it to get back at the North and then (along with Northern aristos) stockpiled phenomenal amounts of booze in the year between full ratification and the effective date.

      The saloon-keepers, brewers and distillers were guilty of some pretty underhanded and despicable campaigns too, and fought women's suffrage because they (like the drys) realized that there would be a majority only if women got the vote.  Their campaign against suffrage turned women in favor of prohibition by 9-1 as individual states allowed women to vote.

      The other fascinating thing is that in 1910 excise taxes on alcohol made up 70% of internal revenue and 30-40% of US gov't revenue overall (tariffs wewre the other big source).  To allow for prohibition an alternative revenue source was needed, hence the 16th Amendment and the income tax.

      In fact, there were no amendments to the Constitution after the technical changes of the iith and 12th until the Reconstruction Amendments (13-14-15), then a long gap and then within 5-7 years came the 16th (income tax), 17th (direct election of Senators), 18th (prohibition) and 19th (women's suffrage).  

      Only 2 amendments have restricted rather than expanding rights:  the 13th (slavery) and 18th.

      I seriously doubt that birthright citizenship will be restricted by amendment, although a future Congress might try to restrict it, setting up a constitutional case.

      Why does Meg Whitman want China to win the race for green tech dominance?

      by Mimikatz on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 02:13:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Redefinition (0+ / 0-)

      One of the greatest parallels I see, is the attempt to change the language so the choices aren't so stark. Calling abstinence temperance is a lot like calling anti-abortion pro-life.

      Or like calling abortion choice?  ;)

      •  I can be pro-choice as public policy (0+ / 0-)

        Yet be anti-abortion as personal policy. They describe different thought processes though one allows the other.

        Anti-abortion and pro-life refer to the same thing; it's not only a redefinition for rhetorical effect, it assumes a fact not in evidence; that life begins at conception not at birth.

        If it were true, they couldn't say it on Fox News. -6.62 -5.90

        by PBCliberal on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 05:29:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site