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

171–180 of 369 posts

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

#171

Post by bell-cot »

codexb wrote: post #94
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.)

The controlling case is Wickard v Filburn (1942). A farmer was told he could only grow X acres of feed on his own land; feed that he had no intention of selling and was being fed entirely to his own livestock on the same land. This seems to overturn that in part, but until Wickard is overturned, and the interstate commerce clause reigned in, there will be weird side effects of it like this.

There's a lot of context (behind Wickard v Filburn) which would obviously not apply to anyone distilling for personal consumption:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

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

#172

Post by gowld »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #118
pdonis wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Wickard v. Filburn, back in 1942, they said the same thing for wheat .

You say that like interstate commerce regulation was more egregious for wheat than it was for marijuana. But Raich is significantly more egregious: the theory on which the government won Wickard v. Filburn , that private consumption of wheat could affect the interstate market for wheat, doesn't even apply, because there can be no interstate market in a substance that is illegal to trade.

The reason marijuana is Federally illegal in the first place is because the commerce clause is interpreted to allow it.

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

#173

Post by rhcom2 »

cogman10 wrote: post #170
limagnolia wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mormons voted strongly to legalize MJ in Utah. Maybe your politician is just an odd man out? edit: Well, I should note the Utah vote was only for "medical" MJ.

It got through via a ballot initiative. It wouldn't have been passed by the legislators in UT without that. That's why the guy in my state, C. Scott Grow, has also been fighting to make ballot initiatives harder. He's terrified that an MJ initiative would make it's way in that way.

Republicans in Utah are also trying to remove the power from ballot initiatives because they're upset the Utahans passed an anti-gerrymandering initiative.

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

#174

Post by HWR_14 »

semiquaver wrote: post #98
codexb wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The controlling case is Wickard v Filburn (1942). A farmer was told he could only grow X acres of feed on his own land; feed that he had no intention of selling and was being fed entirely to his own livestock on the same land. This seems to overturn that in part, but until Wickard is overturned, and the interstate commerce clause reigned in, there will be weird side effects of it like this.

Circuit courts may not overrule Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, this decision purports to rest on the “Necessary and Proper” clause, avoiding Wickard (decided on commerce clause grounds)

How does the supreme court revisit precedents if the circuit court doesn't readdress the issue?

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

#175

Post by [deleted] »

torstenvl wrote: post #151
codexb wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It uses the phrase “regulate commerce between the states” which effectively has the same meaning.

No. It absolutely does not use that language, and it baffles me as to what would cause you to say that it does. Please endeavor to say only true things. The truth matters.

[deleted]

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

#176

Post by gowld »

bsimpson wrote: post #132
john01dav wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, t…

> If the law is broken, fix the law

If you follow that argument to its conclusion, you end up at: fixing the law requires amending the Constitution, and if the law for amending the constitution is broken, the remedy is revolution. Most participants prefer the current practice instead.

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

#177

Post by laughing_man »

wahern wrote: post #155
laughing_man wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see SCOTUS ever overturning Wickard , sadly. Too many federal programs and regulations would lose their legal basis if that happened.

In Gonzales, O'Connor dissented and Scalia, who was too afraid of pulling the rug out from under the administrative state, issued a concurrence. So, surprises do happen.

Drugs were always a weird exception to what was otherwise pretty consistent jurisprudence on Scalia's part.

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

#178

Post by wiredfool »

beedeebeedee wrote: post #158

The best liquor I ever had was by a state police detective who had been home distilling since he was 12. It was made from rye and corn, but tasted like peaches. I think it is kind of magical to witness the process. I only experimented a few times, and never aged it, so every was very sharp. The best was a sharp brandy made from a bottle of wine I bought. The worst was using a leftover keg of beer, which bittered the…

The best I’ve ever done was a double distilled Spanish box wine we picked up for 1eur/l. The wine was undrinkable, but the brandy was sooooo smooth.

Next best was cheap tokaij furmint, distilled once and then mixed back into some of the undistilled wine. Basically the same thing as pineau de charante, but Hungarian and on the kitchen table.

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

#179

Post by cs02rm0 »

Tangurena2 wrote: post #133
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 t…

Crikey. My dad (and just about every other westerner) used to brew sid down the road in Dhahran, I never heard of fires from it.

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

#180

Post by jrflowers »

cogman10 wrote: post #170
limagnolia wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mormons voted strongly to legalize MJ in Utah. Maybe your politician is just an odd man out? edit: Well, I should note the Utah vote was only for "medical" MJ.

It got through via a ballot initiative. It wouldn't have been passed by the legislators in UT without that. That's why the guy in my state, C. Scott Grow, has also been fighting to make ballot initiatives harder. He's terrified that an MJ initiative would make it's way in that way.

> C. Scott Grow

Reverse nominal determinism

Post reply on HN