I suspect most distilling laws are illegal

[Woodpile]

Consider that the people transferred the power to the feds and the state to regulate alcohol manufacture, sales and transportation. Concurrent power was granted then removed by the 21st. So unless your state has granted a new power to to regulate, the state has no power. Read 18th and 21st.
In Alabama we directed our legislators to prevent alcohol abuse at the polls but no other power. Therefore, we are free to distill under 9th and 10th amendment. If you think taxes can stop it, they are still regulating production and it has never been legal to accomplish your goal by alternative means. Consider '' I didn't murder him, I just set the house on fire and he died '' - you would never win that. We have a right to make our own stuff. Could they tax home cooking?

[Prairiepiss]

That was your first post?

[F6Hawk]

WtF?!?!?

[FullySilenced]

I think you will spend a huge pile of money trying to get that approach to work....

[Coyote]

Give it a try!

Build a huge still,
Tell everyone,
Call the cops, Call the Gov.

Let us know how you come out. . . When you get out


Coyote

[ga flatwoods]

Better yet try to find a layer to defend that stance or defending yourself even. Sounds like you been reading form the Colonel's post regarding such.
GA

[rad14701]

Virtually all laws are convoluted with legalese so as to allow for multiple interpretations... The only interpretation that counts is the one handed down by the judge as ruling on a case... Using case law to set precedence based on a specific interpretation and ruling is never guaranteed... Therefore it is foolish to think that simply because something is posted on the internet that it makes one bit of difference to the world at large...

[Halfbaked]

I Like your thinking and agree with you but looking through the bars on the cell doesn't sound to appealing to me. Others that have more say so than me don't agree with you. Hopefully in my lifetime you will be correct in all aspects.

[Woodpile]

Yes, I have been reading a while, but that was the first post. I make wine and beer and I am a gun rights advocate as well. I have the same approach there as well. I have already beaten our county board and sheriff on two issues without going to court. I also happen to be an elected law officer I have studied the constitution for years and am comfortable reading law. I understand there is risk in my approach, but i have not found any cases where a defendant made the simple constitutional argument . the simple fact is that we have the same right to make bread as we do liquor, and those who think we don't are helping us lose our freedom. Jefferson and Washington made liquor and had guns in new England without permits - what happened?

[F6Hawk]

By all means, build a still, get caught, and defend yourself. NO ONE on this forum would argue against you, I promise. But Johnny Law.... now that's another story.

OTOH, if you won, your name would go down in the history books. One for the little guy!!

[Truckinbutch]

By all means, build a still, get caught, and defend yourself. NO ONE on this forum would argue against you, I promise. But Johnny Law.... now that's another story.

OTOH, if you won, your name would go down in the history books. One for the little guy!!

I'll pass on that singular noteriety . Don't tell , don't sell is a better mantra spoken often here .
Beard the lion in his den if you must . Many of us will probably contribute to your defense fund anonomosly .

[skeeterbite]

^^^I would contribute to his defense.

[Woodpile]

Since I have never distilled, I have nothing to contribute to the members in that regard - so I read. I can offer discussion on the constitution and our rights, so I contribute here. Thanks to those who support the concept - I am not a rash person, and I will not make a bold effort in pursuit of recognition. I also would most likely defend myself - but I might consider a lawyer on the condition that the defense must be constitutional (as I have stated, I have only seen negotiation and mitigation on technical points so far - and one misguided appeal to the constitution).

I will provide the case in an update (as the name eludes me), but the US Supreme Court ruling stated that the constitution means what it said and uses the plain meaning of the words as understood by the common man. Read the 18th...

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.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress

Points: 1) intoxicating liquors where authorized for regulation 2) the areas of regulation are: manufacture, sale, and transportation 3) congress and the states are granted concurrent power

The 21st rescinded the 18th and left only a small power for the feds to control transportation into areas otherwise prohibited. All those points, in those areas, and the concurrent grant of power are gone. They knew needed the 18th to regulate in the first place.

If your authority was revoked, what grounds do you have to continue to regulate anyway? None, under the 9th and 10th. The exception is if the people of your state have re-granted that power to their state legislatures - my state has not.

I welcome dissent and questions, as they help me define my argument. Thank you.

EDIT: Here is the case and quote I mentioned earlier: Justice ROBERTS, for the majority UNITED STATES v. SPRAGUE, 282 U.S. 716 (1931)
The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention in clear there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.

[Jmcdaniel0]

Hey I hear you, and boy do I want you to be correct. However, I would just as soon not be in jail. I am 100% pro constitution, and I am willing to bet the founders are rolling in their graves.

[Woodpile]

Yeah, I don't want to go to jail, either. I am moving carefully.

[ChairLawyer]

I don't understand this line.

"Consider that the people transferred the power to the feds and the state to regulate alcohol
manufacture, sales and transportation."

Do you mean via ratification of the 18th?
And I think you may be forgetting Article VI, § 2, the Supremacy Clause.

[Ayay]

Ssssh, secret stuff...illegal laws are lagal.

[Woodpile]

I don't understand this line.

"Consider that the people transferred the power to the feds and the state to regulate alcohol
manufacture, sales and transportation."

Do you mean via ratification of the 18th?
And I think you may be forgetting Article VI, § 2, the Supremacy Clause.

That is correct. the 9th amendment holds that we have a right to anything not mentioned, and the 10th prevents the government from granting itself power. All power comes from the consent of the governed, which is exactly what the 18th amendment was. The unique wording of the 18th transferred by simultaneously to the state and national government.

I don't believe I am forgetting the Supremacy Clause"; but I also fail to see the connection. National law is only supreme in areas where the power has been granted - it is not arbitrary. In this case, both levels of government were awarded power, and the Supremacy clause would hold national law above state. However, the 21st also simultaneously removed power from both governments. The only remaining power in the 21st was the ability of the national government to control transportation into prohibited territory. Even if the residents of a state were to award this same power to their state legislature, National law would be supreme.

[jase1977]

land of the free.... my ass! more like big business doesn't want you guys making your own so the general population has to buy brought stuff and pay taxes etc etc.

[Woodpile]

It was ratified in 1919 along with income tax and direct election of senators. A series of moves by early progressives (led by President Wilson) to transfer a great deal of power to government. It was not a big business issue, it was a control issue.

[mipuz]

Congress has authority to regulate alcohol because of the Commerce Clause. States have authority from section 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment.

"The argument that 'the Twenty-first Amendment has somehow operated to "repeal" the Commerce Clause' for alcoholic beverages has been rejected" as being “an absurd oversimplification,” “patently bizarre,” and “demonstrably incorrect...” GRANHOLM V. HEALD. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1116.ZO.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

[Woodpile]

Congress has authority to regulate alcohol because of the Commerce Clause. States have authority from section 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment.

"The argument that 'the Twenty-first Amendment has somehow operated to "repeal" the Commerce Clause' for alcoholic beverages has been rejected" as being “an absurd oversimplification,” “patently bizarre,” and “demonstrably incorrect...” GRANHOLM V. HEALD. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1116.ZO.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

That quote is no different than some lawyer or judge saying that 2A does not protect your right to keep and bear arms unless you are in a militia (which, obviously makes no sense to say that your military can have weapons). But, many dingbats say it, and we let them get away with it. For the sake of argument, why don't you explain why the 18th amendment was passed if the commerce clause already covered it.

The commerce clause has been in force since the constitution was first ratified; even before the bill of rights. Why then was the 18th necessary when commerce consists of 1) manufacture, 2)transportation and 3) sale - all of which happen to be the exact powers granted in the 18th amendment.

If you wish to accept everything the government tells you, you have lost your freedom and I am sorry for that. You will accept any law and don't care if it violates your rights. I refuse to give it up, but that does not mean I will build a giant still and call the cops on myself. Using the commerce clause argument, congress can try to regulate everything - but it was never intended to be limitless. For example, congress can regulate intercourse and birth control, as they lead to the production or prevention of children which, in turn, will affect market consumption, therefore they can regulate it. Using your argument, you would have to accept it if congress told you to quit making your own salad, as lettuce moves in commerce, as well.

To make another point from the commerce clause, it lists the ability of congress to deal with three other levels of government, 1) states, 2) Indian tribes 3) foreign governments. It does not mention people, or corporations. using your approach, congress can use the commerce clause to regulate the french people, and their businesses - it was designed to ensure governments do not interfere with commerce.

Finally, twice in the constitution, congressional power is restricted to making regulations only on federal property and in the territories. Why do you think they have the power to come into my house, in my state, and tell me what I can eat or drink? I'll tell you why, because too many people are willing to let them.

If you do not understand the constitution, you do not understand your freedom or rights. Don't let some control-freak bully tell you what it says. It is written in fairly straightforward English, and there are numerous supreme court cases that state it must be interpreted that way.