Publisher： Cambridge University Press
E-ISSN： 1537-5943|13|4|607-633
ISSN： 0003-0554
Source： American Political Science Review, Vol.13, Iss.4, 1919-11, pp. : 607-633
Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.
Abstract
United States v. Hill by a vote of seven to two sustained the so-called Reed Amendment by which Congress prohibited the introduction of liquor into any state which forbade the sale or manufacture of liquor within its borders. West Virginia, though interdicting manufacture and sale, allowed any person to bring into the state for personal use a quart of liquor each month. Since Mr. Hill did only what West Virginia sanctioned, Mr Justice McReynolds for himself and Mr. Justice Clarke insisted that “the Reed Amendment in no proper sense regulates interstate commerce, but is a direct intermeddling with the state's internal affairs.” He inquired rhetorically: “If Congress may deny liquor to those who live in a state simply because its manufacture is not permitted there, why may not this be done for any suggested reason, e.g. because the roads are bad or men are hanged for murder or coals are dug. Where is the limit?” For the majority Mr. Justice Day answered that the control of Congress over interstate commerce is not limited by state laws and that “the policy of Congress acting independently of the states may induce legislation without reference to the particular policy or law of any given state.”
Related content
Access to resources
Recommend
