Posted on 12/07/2004 11:56:44 AM PST by MissouriConservative
"But it could also make it easier for minors to obtain alcoholic beverages. Some states say that a ruling against them would make it harder to police the liquor industry and collect taxes on alcohol sales."
That's a red herring. It's not going to become any harder to police the liquor industry. Although it may become harder to tax it, and that's why they're upset enough to bring up the old "Won't somebody think of the children?" card.
After all, the 2st "trumps" the USSC itself inasmuch as it's really written into the Constitution, whereas the court may be dealt with legislatively.
Relevant discussion ping!
That's the way I'm reading it, too. I would love to buy wine via the Internet -- but it appears from the wording of amendment 21 that the states get to decide that.
"Although it may become harder to tax it..."
That is one of the keys here, taxing. But also coming into play is certain states protecting small liquor producers within the state itself that cannot compete if the state opens up to "big liquor."
It's simply state protectionism....and protectionism is never a good thing....it keeps prices artificially high and limits consumer choices.
"But also coming into play is certain states protecting small liquor producers within the state itself that cannot compete if the state opens up to "big liquor." "
Ah yes, that hadn't occured to me. I also have never been a supporter of protectionism, but when I consider the many local breweries in my area it strikes me that I would be very sad if they died at the hands of Budweiser, which would also limit consumer choice.
(I hope this isn't confusingly written, coffee has fused my neurons together and damaged my motor cortex;it's really a miracle I can do anything other than shiver like a scared poodle right now.)
"but when I consider the many local breweries in my area it strikes me that I would be very sad if they died at the hands of Budweiser."
There are several micro-breweries within a few miles of my home and it would be bad if they died off....but as far as I know, Missouri does not have any sort of restrictions like New York or Michigan does. In fact, Missouri (St. Louis) is home to Anheiser Bush.
There has to be some balance here that New York or Michigan cannot find or don't want to find.
I knew this discussion would come up, and I was prepared. I told them that I wasn't selling the bottles, but giving them as gifts, so they weren't regulated by interstate commerce rules (no commerce, no rule, right?). I'm sure the argument went right over their heads, but they let me ship them anyway, which is good, because if they hadn't, I would have merely gone home and wrapped them myself, then shipped them anyway.
I just ran into this problem yesterday when trying to order wine as a gift to send to North Carolina.
Received the following message...
Kinda sorta backwards. The Constitution limits Federal Gov't. Or would if anybody paid attention to it.
Who is the guy between lenin and castro?
I found this on a website that sells liquor and then you can have it shipped as a gift to anyone....except
"States We Cannot Ship To
There are several states that we cannot ship either beer or wine to including: AK, HI, KY, MA, MI, UT or other areas where prohibited by law. Many states require the direct shipment of alcohol to be bulk transported into the state where a wholesaler can take possession of it and then it is distributed by a local shipper to a retail customer which is why many organizations are not set up to ship alcohol into certain states."
The laws, I guess, are very confusing. I'm glad you got your package shipped.
"Or would if anybody paid attention to it."
No one pays attention to this
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Since the Constitution does not prohibit it....then guess what?....It's a state's right. I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand this....I guess it's like you said....no one is paying attention.
I'm not sure, but I think it may be the WWII General -Zukhov - who beat the Germans on the eastern front. Unless he's just another Ted Kennedy campaign aide.
Since the Constitution does not prohibit it....then guess what?....It's a state's right. I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand this....I guess it's like you said....no one is paying attention.
What do you make of Article VI?
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Well, since the 10th Amendment is in the Constitution, and the Constitution does not expressly prohibit states from doing it, then I'd say nothing is out of whack.
In fact, the 21st Amendment gives the states great latitude to do what it wants where liquor is concerned, so add that to the above paragraph and it is pretty cut and dry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.