Click to be added!Wine economy news alert.
Posted on 04/20/2005 8:09:11 PM PDT by quantim
US Supreme Court justices could soon rule on a topic that wine lovers across the country will care about -- the direct sale of wine to consumers.
It's still illegal in some states to order wine online.
Meanwhile, in a California warehouse, wine is packed up and shipped directly to consumers who are either in wine clubs or order bottles online.
But it can only be shipped to states that allow direct wine sales. In Pennsylvania, wine can be ordered online but must be delivered to a state liquor store in order for the transaction to be legal. The state store collects state taxes on the purchase.
Mark Behnke owns a company that does the packing and shipping for California wineries:
"There's states on the east coast especially -- places like Massachusetts -- where consumers are very frustrated because they can't get the wines that they want."
Behnke and others in his industry are hoping the US Supreme Court will rule that all states must lift their bans on direct wine sales.
Don't think this will have much of an economic impact but rather having an effect on standardizing hundreds of different state laws.
Click to be added!Wine economy news alert.
When it's interstate it's federal.
I am for this. I would like to buy a wife online. I want a willing attractive and fun-to-be-around blonde . . .oh you said wine . . . nevermind, but that's a good idea too.
"When it's interstate it's federal."
have your ever noticed that the only two functions of the federal governement(protect borders and govern insterstate trade) are the only two issue they either don't want to do or do a piss poor job and doing. yet they put their federal hands on EVERYTHING else.
Just like the constitution and bill of rights.
The 2nd amendment is plain as day, yet they act like it doesn't exist. Yet they can make up some 'right to privacy' to make abortion a federal issue when the feds have no authority.
That's a really good point.
That's likely why they took the case in the first place and why I predict they toss out state laws.
HAHAH- it's only funny because it's true!
But, be warned!! If the USSC throws out the state laws that prevent the purchase of wine inline, we will be faced by greedy, corrupt politicians of all persuasions who will use the decision as ammunition that some/all internet sales must be taxed to replace lost revenues. It is just a question of time!!
But what if the feds haven't passed any laws concerning it? Then the states can regulate within their own borders.
Thank God the United States Supreme Court has decided to focus their attention on matters of extreme importance related to protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States. They must have very concerned friends from the Saturday night cocktail parties who aren't happy with their choice of wines online.
Your sarcasm is correctly noted as our borders leak faster than Leaky Leahy. Problem is that there are so many lawsuits in state courts that are clogging the system. The mess does have to be cleaned up so lawyers and lawmakers can get back to the business of national security. </sarcasm>
Hope they figure this out.
Not Alcohol!! Section 2 of the 21st Amendment (repealing Prohibition) states:
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.When they repealed Prohibition they allowed individual states to retain the right to make their own import/export laws governing alcohol.
Although, I believe that every state should allow wine shipments, this is an issue that needs to be brought up at the state level. If SCOTUS overturns these laws they will have, once again, ignored what is actually written in the Constitution. Just because they are violating the Constitution to get the result you want, doesn't make it right.
Following a review of the cases in this area, the Court has observed ''that there is no bright line between federal and state powers over liquor. The Twenty-first Amendment grants the States virtually complete control over whether to permit importation or sale of liquor and how to structure the liquor distribution system. Although States retain substantial discretion to establish other liquor regulations, those controls may be subject to the federal commerce power in appropriate situations. The competing state and federal interests can be reconciled only after careful scrutiny of those concerns in a 'concrete case.'''
Invalidating under the Sherman Act a state fair trade scheme imposing a resale price maintenance policy for wine, the Court balanced the federal interest in free enterprise expressed through the antitrust laws against the asserted state interests in promoting temperance and orderly marketing conditions. Since the state courts had found the policy under attack promoted neither interest signficantly, the Supreme Court experienced no difficulty in concluding that the federal interest prevailed. Whether more substantial state interests or means more suited to promoting the state interests would survive attack under federal legislation must await further litigation.
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.