National Prohibition Cases ( 1920 )

Mr. Justice Van Devanter

announced the conclusions of the court.

Power to amend the Constitution was reserved by Article V, which reads:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three' fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that ho State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

The text of the Eighteenth Amendment, proposed by Congress in 1917 and proclaimed as ratified in 1919, 40 Stat. 1050, 1941, is as follows:

“Section 1. After one year from- the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of. intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

“Sec. 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

We here are concerned with seven cases involving the validity of that Amendment and of certain general features of the National Prohibition Law, known as the Volstead Act, c. 83, 4Í Stat. 305, which was adopted to enforce the Amendment. The relief sought in each case is an injunction against the execution of that act. Two of the cases —Nos. 29 and 30, Original, — were brought in this court, and the others in district courts. Nos. 696, 752, 788 and 837 are here on appeals from decrees refusing injunctions, and No. 794 from a decree granting an injunction. The cases have, been elaborately argued at the bar and in printed briefs; and the arguments have been attentively considered, with the result that we reach and announce the following conclusions on the questions involved:

1. The adoption by both houses of Congress, each by a two-thirds vote, of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution sufficiently shows that the proposal was deemed necessary by all who voted for it. An . express declaration that they regarded it as necessary is not essential. None of the resolutions whereby prior amendments were proposed contained such a declaration.

2. The two-thirds vote in each house which is required in proposing an amendment is a vote of two-thirds of the members present — assuming the presence of a quorum— and not a vote of two-thirds of the entire membership, present and absent. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Kansas, 248 U. S. 276.

3. The referendum provisions of staté constitutions and statutes cannot be applied, consistently with the Constitution of „the United States, in the ratification or rejection of amendments to it. Hawke v. Smith, ante, 221, *

4. The prohibition of the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation and exportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, as embodied in the Eighteenth Amendment, is within the power to amend reserved by Article Y of the Constitution.

. 5. That Amendment, by lawful proposal and ratification, has become a part of the Constitution, and must be respected and given effect the same as other provisions of that instrument.’

6. The first section of the Amendment — the.one embodying the prohibition — is operative throughout the entire territorial limits of the United States, binds all legislative bodies, courts, public officers and individuals within those limits, and of its own force invalidates every legislative act- — whether by Congress, by a state legislature, or, by a territorial assembly — which authorizes or sanctions what the section prohibits.

7. The second section of the Amendment — the one declaring “The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation ” — does not enable Congress or the several , States to defeat or thwart the prohibition, but only to enforce it by appropriate means. ■ i

8. The words “ concurrent power ” in that section do not mean joint power, or require that legislation thereunder by Congress, to be effective, shall be approved or sanctioned by the several States or any of them; nor do they mean that the power to,enforce is'divided between Congress and the several States along the lines which separate or distinguish foreign and interstate commerce from intrastate affairs.

9. The power confided to Congress by that section, while not exclusive, is territorially coextensive with the prohibition-of the first section, embraces manufacture and other intrastate transactions as well as importation, exportation and interstate traffic, and is in no wise dependent on or affected by action or inaction on the part of the several States or any of them.

10. That power may be exerted against the disposal for beverage purposes of liquors manufactured before the Amendment became effective just as it may be against subsequent manufacture for those purposes. In either case it is a constitutional mandate or prohibition that is being enforced.

11. While recognizing that there are limits beyond which Congress cannot go in treating beverages as within its power of-enforcement, we think those .limit® are not transcended by the provision of the Volstead Act (Title II, § 1), wherein liquors containing as much as one-half of one per cent, of alcohol by volume and fit for use for beverage purposes are treated as within that power. Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U. S. 264.

Giving effect to these conclusions, we dispose of the cases as follows:

In Nos. 29 and SO, Original, the bills áre dismissed.

In No. 794 the decree is reversed.

In Nos. 696, 752, 788 and 8S7 the decrees are affirmed.