Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(168,441 posts)
6. "Since it is actually in the constitution,and I don't see any ambiguity in the wording,...
Fri Nov 21, 2025, 04:41 PM
Nov 2025
that it would take an ammendment to change that"


There was nothing "ambiguous" about this -

18th Amendment

Amendment XVIII

Section 1.

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2.

The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

(snip)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxviii


that lead to this -

21st Amendment

Amendment XXI

Section 1.


The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

(snip)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxi

Recommendations

3 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 - 3 Decision yankee87 Nov 2025 #1
Wouldn't that affect the orange piggy since his mother was not born in America? kimbutgar Nov 2025 #2
No. According to the EO.... reACTIONary Nov 2025 #12
Seems to me Timewas Nov 2025 #3
"Since it is actually in the constitution,and I don't see any ambiguity in the wording,... BumRushDaShow Nov 2025 #6
What I said n/t Timewas Nov 2025 #8
I am interpreting what you said BumRushDaShow Nov 2025 #9
Trump made money from doing exactly that mgardener Nov 2025 #4
Wait, "if neither parent WAS"? Is this fuckhead trying to do this RETROACTIVELY? AZJonnie Nov 2025 #5
No. The executive order.... reACTIONary Nov 2025 #13
Even so, I'm not sure the SCOTUS can give it a go-ahead without it declaring it applies retroactively AZJonnie Nov 2025 #14
There are multiple "practical" problems with this EO.... reACTIONary Nov 2025 #20
"meeting in private" PSPS Nov 2025 #7
Oh, and maybe include a quote published in 1512, from the Vice-Mayor of West Bumfuckshire, England AZJonnie Nov 2025 #15
Well............. the maga 6 might have to look in the mirror and ask if there relatives were immigrants................ turbinetree Nov 2025 #10
It's pretty simple. A change like this takes a constitutional amendment just like the second amendment regarding guns. cstanleytech Nov 2025 #11
We've seen this game before. Shipwack Nov 2025 #16
They did a carve-out for 45 BumRushDaShow Nov 2025 #17
Thanks! Forgot about that part. Shipwack Nov 2025 #19
Virtually all of us Cirsium Nov 2025 #18
What a bunch of asswipes mdbl Nov 2025 #21
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court Weighs Deci...»Reply #6