Court Strikes Down Ban on Wine Shipments

AP via Yahoo ^ | May 16, 2005 | HOPE YEN

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050516granholm.pdf

The complete ruling.

[RSmithOpt]

Good point. If we legalize prostitution, we can tax porn, right? We can be as progressive and unemployed as our EU idols, right?

Guess if we forsake only those things that hurt other people, then we OK, right?

None of us can live a perfect life, but, I don't see the need for only 2 sin taxes if that is the case. I'm sure no kid would ever fraudulently scam a CC number to buy wine on the Internet.

[Gabz]

The sad part, this will never happen in most states unless the citizens speak with one voice on the issue.

Sadly your are correct, because of the dynamics involved in the issues. Even among conservatives there is really no solid consensus on what should be funded and what should be cut and how it should be paid for, etc., etc.

[RSmithOpt]

Even among conservatives there is really no solid consensus on what should be funded and what should be cut and how it should be paid for, etc., etc.

So why do we even need a government? Economic slavery of the general masses for the privileged?

Conservatives can disagree about spending, etc. Why can't a legislative body be anonymously polled by nonprofit organizations once a month on spending issues and the results published to the body and the public before the legislative process commences?

Baseline servicing legislation has screwed the American taxpayer.

[RSmithOpt]

FYI:

http://www.wral.com/news/4492445/detail.html

Wonder why RJR is trying to skip the payment? Could it possibly be because the states have taken monies early to balance their budgets in lieu of lower total payouts in the future because of reduced revenues from the recent recession? And, after last year's handouts, the tobacco companies don't have the money for the framers this year?

This was all brought out in last year in feeding the politicians.

Making RJR and others look like the bad guys on this one. The article doesn't even relate to the above fact.

[Gabz]

Why can't a legislative body be anonymously polled by nonprofit organizations once a month on spending issues .......

Thanks, but no thanks. Some of the so-called nonprofits are the WORST culprits when it comes to wanting more and more money. Who do you think are the ones that push for onerous laws on alcohol and tobacco as well as the onerous taxes?

[Gabz]

You ask a complicated question that I have some thoughts and reasonings on - but at the moment I must pass it until later as I have a meeting and a 1st grade school program to attend this evening.

I will return to your question upon my return later this evening.

[quantim]

Click to be added or removed.

Supreme Court gets it right wine ping.

[quantim]

Wine ping - added to list sorry I missed.

[RSmithOpt]

Hope your meeting and program went well....at least one parent or teacher that understands the importance of personal involvement for and with the little ones.

On a further note. I was referring to organizations like the John Locke Foundation, NC Citizens for Tax Reform, etc. here in NC to poll state legislative bodies. Not environmentalists or religious or ethnic organizations, or gay activists groups, etc., doing the polling; they can just meet, call, or write about their special interests concerns.

http://www.johnlocke.org/

If you could / would just glance at the link for the homepage and the topics / opinions posted and you may get my drift.

I believe the politicians can debate / decide between themselves where to best spend money for the general good or political gain. I am just sick and tired of the government (and certain citizens) thinking they can just reach into the citizens' back pockets anytime they come up short, and there's no recourse from the public to moderate spending to coincide with real economic growth and inflation.

Also, in the public there is the general phenomenon of the supply and demand curves. There is an inverse of the same concept when it comes to taxes and economic growth. The demands from a small percentage of the population versus the available supply of money.

Such thoughts are very unpopular with politicians as to limit their power on spending issues, however, with such state constitutional mandates (balanced budgets indexed to inflation and actual economic growth; 2/3 majority vote requirement for tax increases from both houses) in place, the politicians could then be more focused on debate of exactly which social issues (special interests) actually warrant funding.

[Gabz]

Sorry I didn't get back to you last night - things went a bit longer than I anticipated. There is something extremely heartwarming about 60 1st graders reciting patriotic poems and singing patriotic songs.

As to your questions regarding the tobacco buyouts - you are absolutely correct the companies will always be made to be the bad guys, no matter what. after rereading that article this morning, I'm really not sure what the problem is.

My apologies for misunderstanding your implications regarding the polling done by the non-profits, I have no problem with and agree with you on the types of organizations you listed. It appears you and I are basically on the same page when it comes to curbs on spending and taxes.

[RSmithOpt]

I like being on the same page with other folks.

From your tag line: Never give up. Never, ever quit. It's not so much about winning that is important, it's about doing the right thing.

I can remember 2 kindergarten recitals and one 1st grade recital. That would be about 42 yr. ago. I look back at myself then sand smile. Guess if I'd had my way, I'd remained shy and introverted. However, thanks to my caring teachers and their constant encouragement, I overcame that shyness and they released an extrovert for the most part. Dad use to always tell me that I'd talk to a fence post if it would talk back.

Please have a good day!

[Gabz]

It's not so much about winning that is important, it's about doing the right thing.

You are right - but winning is always an added bonus!

Shy and introverted are not words that can be applied to our daughter, she is right at home in front of a crowd on a stage. Part of it, I know is genetic, as neither my husband or I are shy, but also we have always taken her everywhere with us and so she is used to being around adults and is quite comfortable talking to anyone about anything.

You have a wonderful day yorself, it has been extremely pleasant chatting with you.

[dervish]

"That is fairly clear language.The amendment gives the stats clear ability to legislate the manner in which liquor can be brought into their state...."

Here is the ambiguity:

“Section 2. 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.”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


It depends whether the portion in commas "in violation of the laws thereof” modifies “transportation and importation” or “delivery and use.”

Justice Scalia and the majority applied it to the “delivery and use” portion deciding that if a state allowed internet sales such delivery and use was not a violation of state law and could be allowed from out of state as well. Normal and grammatical usage has a modifying clause apply to the immediately adjacent subject, the words it is next to in the sentence.

Also, if the prohibition against violating state law applied to “transportation and importation” then basically all it says is "You can’t violate a state’s laws" That clause would then be meaningless since of course you can’t violate state laws.