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

291–300 of 369 posts

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

#291

Post by carefulfungi »

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.

It will be an interesting next decade or two on this topic. The federal government increased its power in part to coerce States to end Jim Crow, to broaden personal liberty (like with Roe v. Wade), establish a social safety net, and set minimum environmental protection standards. If we keep seeing federal power being used to compel a reduction in liberalism among the States, the sides supporting "state rights" seem likely to switch.

Adding to that, if the supreme court continues to make realistic federal administration harder by tearing down executive rule making authority and requiring more explicit Congressional rule making (which can't scale in our current system), we'll continue to see less stable and predictable federal regulatory actions - which might further compel the states to step in...

But where will States raise the taxes to make this happen? While the federal government seems willing to do less (in terms of classic liberalism policies), it certainly isn't reducing its spending.

And how will States defend themselves from federal intrusion if they do start to claim more of their power - will we see armed stand-offs between national and state forces?

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

#292

Post by joshuacc »

bcjdjsndon wrote: post #278
semiquaver wrote: post #11

> [Judge Edith Jones] also said that under the government’s logic, Congress could criminalize virtually any in-home activity Well, yeah. This is essentially the holding in Wickard v. Filburn, which seems to be in tension with this decision (overturning that would be great but it’s not the role of the circuit courts of appeal to do preemptively)

The law is something we made up... Of course you can criminalize anything, that's the whole point of the law!

Sure. But by the text of the constitution (the thing we made up) Congress does not have the power to criminalize “anything,” but only things in specific areas. Everything else is left to state law.

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

#293

Post by Zigurd »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #71
lenerdenator wrote: post #27

It'll be interesting to see how many people get methanol poisoning from trying their hand at it without doing the research properly. That being said, so long as it's for private or non-profit use, I don't really see the harm here.

Probably none. Unless someone is intentionally adding methanol to it.

This is what actually happened. Methanol was put into industrial ethanol to prevent people making drinkable booze out of it. It was required. It was the prohibition era version of spraying Agent Orange on a cannabis crop.

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

#294

Post by alphawhisky »

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…

Or because mormons are fucking batshit crazy. Are they gonna ban coffee in the state next? Idiots.

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

#295

Post by snowwrestler »

Decisions like this illustrate what a hollow farce the modern federal courts’ approach is to Constitutional governance.

To be clear, courts are not supposed to change policy or make new policy, they are just supposed to interpret the law as written.

So supposedly this ruling is “not a change in the law” but rather a discovery that actually the law has always been this way but oops, someone read it wrong 158 years ago and literally everyone has read it wrong for the ensuing 158 years.

Until now, when an unusually wise and discerning small group of people finally read things the right way.

I strongly support the substance of this decision, the ban was stupid overreach. But I also recognize that decades of agreeing with the substance of similarly silly “discoveries” has created a situation where federal judges have essentially infinite leeway to inject their own opinions into the law under cover of “wow, I finally discovered the correct interpretation” (no matter how tortured).

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

#296

Post by ilamont »

moron4hire wrote: post #288

If you have a stock pot, a steel bowl that is large enough to sit on top of the stock pot, and a Pyrex measuring glass, you can start distilling now. Put the glass in the center of the pot. Fill the pot with not enough mash to float the glass. Top the pot with the bowl. The condensate will form on the bowl and run towards the bottom center of the bowl, where it will drip into the glass. I was able to distill a few bo…

> I was able to distill a few bottles of home made apple wine that I had screwed up some additional flavorings on. It took a couple of hours for 3 or 4 bottles.

My grandfather used to make something called Apple Jack using a method known as freeze distillation. He'd put fermented cider (widely available in rural New York) in a cask and place it out in the barn on a really cold night. The water would freeze, but the alcohol would not and could be tapped.

https://easygenie.org/blogs/news/cider-and-apple-jack-an-ame...

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

#297

Post by rtkwe »

lmm wrote: post #267
rtkwe wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a perfectly valid one. If the government is violating the constitution or a persons rights why should there be suits all across the country to get that recognized? Especially when the question isn't on something with a lot of particularized tests that's sensitive to the exact case, eg 4th amendment law? Why should rights be so dependent on someone in my particular part of the country having sued?

> If the government is violating the constitution or a persons rights why should there be suits all across the country to get that recognized? Because one judge in one county shouldn't be defining the laws for the whole country? Sure it's great when they issue a ruling you like, but what about when it's a ruling that you don't. If it's a knife-edge situation then letting several judges rule and having the supreme cou…

It's rarely down to one judge in one county though, most are entered pending appeal and the appeals court can immediately put the injunction on hold or in cases like this the first injunction might come from a circuit court who's far from one judge, by the time it gets to a circuit it's gone through multiple judges and some cases are heard by a bank of judged instead of just one.

> Your rights are always dependent on your willingness to sue to defend them. It's nice if someone else does the legwork and sets the precedent, but you shouldn't depend on that.

I don't have a spare million sloshing around even if I could get granted standing for various things I would like to defend. It's not just a problem of willingness.

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

#298

Post by dangus »

snowwrestler wrote: post #295

Decisions like this illustrate what a hollow farce the modern federal courts’ approach is to Constitutional governance. To be clear, courts are not supposed to change policy or make new policy, they are just supposed to interpret the law as written. So supposedly this ruling is “not a change in the law” but rather a discovery that actually the law has always been this way but oops, someone read it wrong 158 years ago…

With my respect for you as a person, I think your idea here is demonstrating both ignorance and cynicism to the way the law works.

This type of interpretation of law is by design.

When lawmakers write a law, it’s specifically the judicial branch’s job to interpret it, which is exactly what is happening here.

It’s also exactly how you describe by design: legislators can pass laws that say whatever they want. They can pass a law that says that all left-handed people are subject to a 50% income tax even though such a thing would clearly violate the constitution. Legislatures can make illegal laws just by having the votes to do so. The role of the judicial branch is to interpret the constitutionality of laws that are made.

Critically, a lawsuit has to challenge a law’s legality and constitutionality in order for it to be interpreted as unconstitutional. There also has to be a harmed party that shows they have standing to make that lawsuit.

It’s entirely possible that nobody brought this specific argument to a judge in the last 158 years. It’s also entirely possible that what is acceptable by reasonable people in society has changed over time, which can alter the interpretation of laws. That is normal, expected, and by design.

I think comments like yours unnecessarily demonize “activist judges” when this is the designed function of their role.

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

#299

Post by bcjdjsndon »

joshuacc wrote: post #292
bcjdjsndon wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law is something we made up... Of course you can criminalize anything, that's the whole point of the law!

Sure. But by the text of the constitution (the thing we made up) Congress does not have the power to criminalize “anything,” but only things in specific areas. Everything else is left to state law.

So make an "amendment" then. You've got a bunch already

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

#300

Post by talkingtab »

The substantial issue is not "unconstitutional" or "revenue", but instead "corporate protectionism". The elephant in the room.

There are certainly concerns about home distillation. The question is whether We address those concerns uniformly or whether protections of "tax revenue" is really protection for corporate interests.

We live in a time of toxic corporatism. Not all corporations are toxic, but those who prioritize their interest over the common good are indeed toxic. Everyone has the right to use nicotine and smoke cigarettes. You can buy them - if old enough - anywhere. But the use of cigarettes is toxic. As are vapes. But some corporations believe that their wealth is worth all the early deaths and health costs that a lifetime of smoking brings.

It is the behavior of these corporations that is the issue here. Those who take the Friedman Doctrine to toxic extreme. The courts have promoted these greedoconomy by enacting United vs FEC and other anti-democratic policies. In contravention of their duty.

Corporate interest have become so powerful that we have become a corpocracy rather than a democracy.

Jeff Bezos has "Democracy dies in the dark" as the motto of the Washington Post. Democracy dies with the Friedman Doctrine and United vs FEC. Thanks Jeff and to all of the other corporate overlords.

Post reply on HN