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

311–320 of 369 posts

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

#311

Post by ilamont »

moron4hire wrote: post #305
ilamont wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a…

So "the water freezes, the alcohol does not," is not actually how freeze-distillation works. The entire batch freezes solid. You then let the block melt and collect the first meltings. If you start off with a 5% ABV solution, freeze it, and then melt off half of it, you'll end up with two halves where one is maybe 7% ABV and the other is maybe 3% ABV. You will need to reprocess those halves to further concentrate (ye…

Just telling you how my father remembered it. Not sure how big the cask or barrel was, but if time and temperature are controlled, how will that affect the rate of ice formation inside the cask? What happens to the remaining unfrozen liquid in terms of ABV?

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

#312

Post by mattmaroon »

LastTrain wrote: post #306
dangus wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

“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” I think that would be constitutional, but in conflict with other laws.

It would violate equal protection.

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

#313

Post by dfdsjsdklfjs »

porksoda wrote: post #270
dfdsjsdklfjs wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's exhausting. Methanol is only ever a tiny portion of the fermented output and that's only with grain fermentation. There's nowhere near enough to blind anyone. Fruit or sugar fermentation does not produce any methanol. In that case the unwanted contaminate is ethyl acetate, which is less harmful but still ruins the drink. It gives bad whiskey its burn and causes hangovers. In both cases the procedure is the…

In this very comment section an earlier post claimed the opposite (that specifically grain fermentation did not produce the big M), and sounded just as knowlegable and plausible to the lay-ear.

[dead]

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

#314

Post by IAmBroom »

newsclues wrote: post #309
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…

[flagged]

If that 'sovereign' is democratically elected, and acting within their prescribed authority limits, it absolutely is democratic.

Having an elected official declare martial law during a violent uprising doesn't mean the people's will is not being done.

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

#315

Post by zdragnar »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #194
ianferrel wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there can be no interstate market in a substance that is illegal to trade. There is in fact an interstate market in many substances that are illegal to trade because laws against things do not make those things fail to exist.

No market that the federal government can recognize, tax or regulate

By making it illegal, it has already been regulated. The IRS also requires reporting and taxing all income, even that which was unlawfully gained.

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

#316

Post by dfdsjsdklfjs »

kelnos wrote: post #262
dfdsjsdklfjs wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The church certainly is, but religion isn't and will never be.

At this point I don't see any difference between the two. Modern religions are shaped (warped, really) by the larger organizations that control them. Sure, the concept of "spiritual/non-scientific belief" isn't a parasite in and of itself, but even if the existing organized religions ceased to hold their sway, and people treated religion as a personal thing without centralized authorities, I still don't see an end to…

[dead]

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

#318

Post by IAmBroom »

DangitBobby wrote: post #252
throwaway173738 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t want my toddler exposed to secondhand pot smoke. Unfortunately it’s more common than secondhand cigarette smoke in my experience. I wouldn’t get upset on my own behalf but he’s too young to choose and it’s my responsibility to act in his behalf as much as I can.

Yep it's more distinctive, more intrusive, spreads further, smells worse.

But is it more unhealthy? The rest are simply adult "preferences".

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

#319

Post by rtkwe »

hansvm wrote: post #260
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?

On the other side, why should one crazed/corrupt judge in some state which has nothing to do with me be able to infringe on my freedoms and make my life worse? Worse, why is it possible to jurisdiction shop for the single bad actor and impose your will on the entire country? You're not wrong, but (like most issues in a 350M-person country) it's complicated. The system is tailored to some expected level/type of corrup…

Yeah it's a definite mixed bag and maybe the solution is to require them to be approved by at least a multijudge panel at the circuit level before going in to place. In effect that basically already happened though, the normal pattern was for injunctions to be stayed for a few weeks pending the appeal and the appeal court would be able to extend that stay if they believed it was flawed or unjustified. The characterization of it being "one crazed judge" doesn't really hold up to the pattern of their actual use, and where judges didn't put in a stay the appeals court could as well.

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

#320

Post by dfdsjsdklfjs »

stale2002 wrote: post #259
dfdsjsdklfjs wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> When it's forced by government decree You aren't being forced to do anything that you didn't agree to. You aren't the apartment owner, you instead just signed the contract and have to follow the apartment rules. I don't see why you get to complain about what someone else is doing with their own property. Its their property. What laws apply to them are none of your business as you simply signed the contract.

[dead]
Post reply on HN