A century ago, the federal government and the many states became intertwined in the pursuit of national Prohibition. Prohibition also represented a literal, fundamental change to the Constitution. The Eighteenth Amendment forbade an individual behavior under the pretext of economic regulation and set out to destroy the industries and institutions associated with indulging that behavior. Moreover, it presented a moment when the powers between state and federal government were not neatly divisible but rather quite messily intertwined. Why is it that not all reform movements turned to a constitutional amendment? There needs to be a greater exploration of the casual mechanisms by which Prohibition became not only a national issue but a national issue which warranted a constitutional amendment—an inherently lofty policy change. The Anti-Saloon League was the mechanism by which Prohibition was kept on legislative agendas at both the federal and state level, and it was the reason why legislators felt compelled to consider such radical policy goals. These efforts, navigating the stringency of the Article V process, made the Eighteenth Amendment possible.