• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

My other favorite part of the decision came in Justice Stevens's short dissent, which comes before Justice Thomas's much longer dissent in the text. In it, Stevens notes that "the notion that discriminatory state laws violated the unwritten prohibition against balkanizing the American economy -- while persuasive in contemporary times when alcohol is viewed as an ordinary article of commerce -- would have seemed strange indeed to the millions of Americans who condemned the use of the 'demon rum' in the 1920s and 1930s.... Today's decision may represent sound economic policy and may be consistent with the policy choices of the contemporaries of Adam Smith who drafted our original Constitution; it is not, however, consistent with the policy choices made by those who amended our Constitution in 1919 and 1933." Point noted. I'll take the contemporaries of Adam Smith any day.

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Comments

Sign in to comment