The late Christopher Stuntz made an argument in The Collapse of American Criminal Justice that one of the overlooked good things about alcohol prohibition is that it was instituted and later repealed by amendment of the Constitution, removing major legal ambiguities and allowing the polity to function as a Constitutional Republic.
For some reason or other we have become averse to amending the constitution since the 26th amendment took place in 1971. (There's a 27th amendment that occurred in 1992, but that's kind of an aberration because it was submitted to the States in 1789 and then almost forgotten about for 200 years; there was no deadline on the original submission.)
>For some reason or other we have become averse to amending the constitution since the 26th amendment took place in 1971.
The "for some reason" is obvious. Look at the amendments passed since prohibition was repealed in 1933.
22nd: Presidential term limits
23rd: D.C. gets to be part of the Electoral College
24th: Prohibits poll taxes
25th: Relating to Presidential succession
26th: Prohibits age discrimination in voting
Notice the trend? They're all related to elections. Because that's practically the only thing left that expansive readings of the commerce clause and other constitutional provisions and outright power grabs haven't given Congress and the Executive the power to do through normal legislation and executive action.
Why go through the trouble of amending the constitution when the courts allow you to just pass a law or issue an executive order?
For some reason or other we have become averse to amending the constitution since the 26th amendment took place in 1971. (There's a 27th amendment that occurred in 1992, but that's kind of an aberration because it was submitted to the States in 1789 and then almost forgotten about for 200 years; there was no deadline on the original submission.)