The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down Rhode Island's law against advertising the prices of alcoholic drinks. Why was the court wrong on this decision?
If the court had ruled that free speech and press meant that no truthful advertisements of a legal product could be banned, they might seem to have a constitutional basis. In that case we should get a constitutional amendment that Congress or any state could indeed limit or ban advertisements of deadly products or products illegal to part of the population. But this was not the argument.The court apparently struck the law down because it was ineffective, citing Rhode Island's alcohol consumption rate as one of the highest in the nation.
Now whose concern should that be? If Rhode Island has an ineffective law, the voters there should talk to their legislators and governor, demanding a better law.
The original intent of the Bill of Rights was to prevent the federal government from restricting certain rights, such as freedom of speech and press. The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not given to the federal government to the states or to the people, leaving states to do their own thing. Because states still have rights, state constitutions still are needed to restrict what state governments can do. The Supreme Court should have refused to decide, this case being outside its jurisdiction.
Salt Lake City