Correct, and in specific, the supremacy clause of the constitution guarantees that federal law overrules state law. I don't see any state AG's having much luck suing the DoJ against this as it is clear as mud:
I mean, for all practical purposes, the feds will do what they want. But if you're going to cite the text of the Constitution, the feds are breaking the law here. It takes case law to justify what they're doing, not just the text.
Just a thought: Why did alcohol prohibition require a constitutional amendment but drug prohibition didn't?
Prohibitionists wanted an amendment because at that point in time, no amendment had ever been overturned.
1) The Supreme Court at the time did not take the expansive view of the Commerce Clause that it has today, so it may very well have declared a federal prohibition law unconstitutional.
2) The amendment didn't give Congress the power to ban alcohol, it banned alcohol. That meant that legalizing alcohol required another amendment. This was a huge win for the prohibitionists.
GP probably meant “repealed” rather than “overturned”.
It probably didn't; the Wartime Prohibition Act was passed before the 18th Amendment was ratified and generally viewed not to require the amendment; this was never tested because by the time it went into effect, the amendment had been ratified.
The Amendment made prohibition a permanent policy as long as it wasn't repealed—which at that point was unprecedented—and was considered valuable for that reason.
Mud is opaque. The phrase "clear as mud" means "not clear at all", or "baffling".
(I only point this out because there are peoplereading HN with English as a second language, and some of them are interested in idiom. I don't care how you use language, and I'm not trying to "correct" you.)