Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 369 posts

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#131

Post by threecheese »

nradov wrote: post #125
bsimpson wrote: post #13

Do this one next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich The Supreme Court somehow held that the feds can regulate what you do in your own home (in this case, growing marijuana for personal use) because it could have a butterfly effect on the interstate price. (Constitutionally, the feds can only regulate _interstate_ commerce.)

Yes, regardless of that specific case I'm hoping to see a series of Supreme Court decisions that will eviscerate federal government power over internal state affairs and restore the original intent of the 10th Amendment. Long live federalism.

We’ve already seen states try and regulate outside their borders; TX with abortion as one example. How does a weaker federal government protect against this, or do you believe it should not? And how does this not devolve into 50 fiefdoms?

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#132

Post by bsimpson »

john01dav wrote: post #114
bsimpson wrote: post #13

Do this one next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich The Supreme Court somehow held that the feds can regulate what you do in your own home (in this case, growing marijuana for personal use) because it could have a butterfly effect on the interstate price. (Constitutionally, the feds can only regulate _interstate_ commerce.)

I suspect that if that ruling was made, then many other drugs being made at home for personal use might become legalized, at least unless states decide to go and ban it too. Note that I am not taking a position here on if that's desirable.

That's arguing around the point.

If the law is broken, fix the law. Don't pervert logic to pretend that the existing law dictates what you want is correct.

If Roe v Wade is based on faulty logic, cool - overturn it. But it then becomes Congress's responsibility to replace it with the correct version.

The federal government isn't supposed to police people's personal behavior. "Federal" comes from "federation" as in, the group of states in the union. It's the job of the legislature to write the laws, the job of the judiciary to interpret the laws, and the job of the states to do these things for areas that don't rise to the level enumerated in the Constitution.

When you get it twisted, you end up with this tug-of-war where corrupt politicians try to put biased judges on the bench to mold the rules to their whims without actually having to pass them.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#133

Post by Tangurena2 »

caycep wrote: post #50

how...uh...explosive...are home stills?

They're a significant fire hazard which is why ATF regulations for stills require them to be located at least 100 feet from a residence.

I live in a city with 2 distilleries. You can smell when they're dealing with the mash because everyone in town can smell it. Also, we all get some black mold (not the really bad one) all over our siding which I think is some byproduct of the fermentation step.

My father worked in the oil business. As a chemical engineer, he was brewing his own moonshine (Poitín [pronounced 'poh-cheen'] in Ireland, Sidiki [means 'friend'] in Arabic language countries) since he was in university. In Saudi Arabia, there were frequent home fires in the western-expatriate communities. Newspapers reported them as "unattended cooking pot" fires. It happened several times per year in the Ras Tanura community they last lived in.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#134

Post by socalgal2 »

cogman10 wrote: post #52
tdb7893 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think much more likely is that it will just be made legal federally sometime in the next decade. Marijuana legalization has majorities across ideologies ( https://news.gallup.com/poll/514007/grassroots-support-legal... ) and even though the inability to create federal law on something so popular seems like a good case study on how the US system doesn't always do a good job representing it's actual people, it seems…

I think the issue is this isn't seen by politicians as a motivating vote driver. It is, however, a motivation for someone to go out and vote against a politician. That's ultimately what keeps things like MJ illegal. There are just far too many people that will get upset about it if it were made federally legal. My state, Idaho, has one such politician that is constantly bringing up and trying to find ways to keep the…

You should argue with him he's acting like Satan. The mormons (I used to be one) say that Satan wanted to force everyone to be good, Jesus wanted each person to have free will and choose.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#135

Post by saltyoldman »

bsimpson wrote: post #13

Do this one next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich The Supreme Court somehow held that the feds can regulate what you do in your own home (in this case, growing marijuana for personal use) because it could have a butterfly effect on the interstate price. (Constitutionally, the feds can only regulate _interstate_ commerce.)

nah, 3d printed firearms next.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#136

Post by dfdsjsdklfjs »

sir0010010 wrote: post #88
cogman10 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue is this isn't seen by politicians as a motivating vote driver. It is, however, a motivation for someone to go out and vote against a politician. That's ultimately what keeps things like MJ illegal. There are just far too many people that will get upset about it if it were made federally legal. My state, Idaho, has one such politician that is constantly bringing up and trying to find ways to keep the…

I personally would be okay with having it legal if smoking could still be banned in multifamily complexes. I don't care if my neighbors are using edibles, but since I know that legalized weed means more smoke coming from my neighbors' balconies, I will always vote "No" when marijuana legalization is on the ballot in my location.

[flagged]

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#137

Post by esseph »

DennisP wrote: post #75
esseph wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gen Z / Alpha have embraced X-"realism" and fully accept essentialism/reject "intersectionality". They're far more conservative/prudish than millennials, even at their young age. This does not meet up with my experience with them at all. Just quick check, what percentage of onlyfans creators are Gen Z / Alpha vs other nonsense year demographics?

I think there's a selection effect there that makes it an unrepresentative sample.

First, Gen Alpha is in their teens, so it's kind of hard to say what is happening there or will happen.

Second, there is a growing divide between gen Z males that are skewing conservative in some ways. Their church/religious attendance is up, but overall attendance is still down.

Gen Z females that are the most liberal demographic in history.

The split is both political/social.

(US analysis)

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#138

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #64
Joker_vD wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, this line is quite funny on its own because while understand what she actually meant, it can be very easily reinterpreted as "only actions committed out-of-home should be crimes; murdered someone in your home? welp, our hands are tied, have a nice day".

I think the point is that murder is handled by the states, not Congress. This is about what the federal government can do, not all government.

Murder can be federal crime if it involves:

  * the murder is of a federal judge or a federal law enforcement official

  * the killing is of an immediate family member of a federal law enforcement official

  * the murder is of an elected or appointed federal official

  * the killing is committed during a bank robbery

  * the killing takes place aboard a ship at sea

  * the murder was designed to influence a court case

  * the killing takes place on federal property

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#139

Post by dfdsjsdklfjs »

embedding-shape wrote: post #101
barbazoo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's only one of many ways to consume it, many people vape, have edibles or drinks and you just don't notice.

Even as a daily weed smoker myself though, it's hard not to acknowledge that a more liberal marijuana stance in a geographic location does lead to that smell being more commonly encountered when in public and out and about. Personally I don't mind, almost the opposite, but for people who don't like the smell, obviously they feel differently. Good thing we can have different policies in different places, and people ca…

[flagged]

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#140

Post by BobaFloutist »

drak0n1c wrote: post #65
mothballed wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would also invalidate the civil rights act, as the (similar) 19th century CRA was already struck down because the 14th amendment binds against discrimination by public not private actors. The reason why the modern CRAs weren't also struck is because they rested on the laurels of Wickard v Filburn declaring the CRA (this time) is about regulating "interstate" commerce.

That would be an improvement in the same spirit, as the modern CRAs are also unconstitutionally limiting over what one chooses to do with their own property. The scope should be limited to government-involved services and facilities, as those must serve all possible taxpayers. We live in a more connected, option-saturated information age where even bigots more often than not understand the utility of at least doing b…

>Egregious offenses are corrected by social pressure and business competition.

This doesn't work when bigots are willing to pay a premium for discriminatory services.

Also, do you feel the same way about the FHA and Title VII? Those also involve regulating what you can choose to do with your private property, but I don't want to assume that you don't consider housing and employment to be distinct from, say, hotels and grocery stores.

Post reply on HN