alcohol prohibition
Has the Volstead Act been repealed?
<p>My understanding is that the Volstead Act implemented Prohibition after the 18th Amendment. When that was repealed by the 21st Amendment, it was assumed that the Volstead Act was no longer Constitutional and therefore not in force. </p>

<p>However, today the Supreme Court recognizes broad Congressional power to regulate economic activity, and in particular we have the Controlled Substances Act. This seems to imply that the Volstead Act is within the modern boundaries of the Commerce Clause.</p>

<p>I have found no law that explicitly repeals the Volstead Act, except in part the Cullen–Harrison Act. It is not clear to me from the text of The Volstead Act itself that it ceases to be effective after the 21st Amendment. Has the Volstead Act been repealed?</p>

<p>The <a href="http://legisworks.org/congress/66/publaw-66.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Volstead Act</a> was partially <a href="http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=49&amp;page=872" rel="nofollow noreferrer">repealed</a> by the 74th Congress: "Titles I and II of the National Prohibition Act...are hereby repealed". You can see the relevant law passed in 1935 via <a href="http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title27/chapter7&amp;edition=prelim" rel="nofollow noreferrer">these links</a>. Title III of the Volstead Act pertains to industrial alcohol, and was not repealed.</p>

<p>Section 2 of the 21st Amendment states:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or
  possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of
  intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby
  prohibited.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This grants <em>states</em> (territories, possessions) the power to prohibit or otherwise regulate importation of alcohol, despite the Commerce Clause (only <em>Congress</em> may regulate interstate commerce). But this is okay: <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/429/190/case.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Craig v. Boren</a> 429 U.S. 190 "resolves" the seeming contradiction, saying</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The wording of §2 of the Twenty-first Amendment closely follows the
  Webb-Kenyon and Wilson Acts, expressing the framers' clear intention
  of constitutionalizing the Commerce Clause framework established under
  those statutes. This Court's decisions since have confirmed that the
  Amendment primarily created an exception to the normal operation of
  the Commerce Clause.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The federal government can impose all sorts of limits, and there are <a href="https://www.ttb.gov/pdf/ttbp51008_laws_regs_act052007.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">200 pages of federal regulations</a> on alcohol which instantiate the power via the Commerce Clause to control alcohol. An outright ban on production / consumption / sale would probably fail, not passing <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny" rel="nofollow noreferrer">strict scrutiny</a>, but it's hard to know what might be seen as a fundamental right calling for strict scrutiny, some time in the future. See <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/case.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wickard v. Filburn</a>, 317 U.S. 111 for an example of how the power to regulate interstate commerce doesn't actually have to involve interstate commerce.</p>
