Posted on 05/17/2005 5:22:13 AM PDT by OESY
Lift a glass of the bubbly -- Californian, not French -- to the U.S. Supreme Court, which yesterday struck down state laws barring out-of-state wineries from shipping directly to consumers. Such laws "discriminate against interstate commerce," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the 5-4 majority. States have "broad powers" to regulate liquor, but if they permit shipping by in-state wine makers, then under the Constitution's Commerce Clause they can't discriminate against producers in the other 49 states.
The ruling is a victory on many fronts, starting with wine lovers, who will now have access to greater variety at potentially lower costs. Wine makers will also benefit by being able to compete more freely. The big losers are the state liquor cartels, which are being cut out as distribution middlemen. The ruling is also a big victory for Internet commerce, which is where more and more wine sales take place. The precedent will make it harder for states to impose restrictions on Internet sales of other products or services; think real estate, insurance or contact lenses.
Notably, the Court's conservatives were split, with Antonin Scalia siding with the free-market majority and William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas in the states-rights minority. In his dissent, Justice Thomas accuses the majority of making "policy choices" that belong to the states. Neither side is partial to the argument favored by liquor distributors that state bans discourage underage drinking. Our own view is that few kids are savvy enough to use their mom or dad's credit card to order a case of wine for a party a few weeks hence. Even so, they can just as easily get bombed on in-state wine.
The Supreme Court ruling overturns laws in New York and Michigan....
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
What will this do to the local distributors??
Not a thing.
The drinking age should be eliminated and schools should be able to suspend any kid who shows up drunk, and expell any who does it more than a few times.
Our problem with drunk drivers and college bingers is because kids do not learn how to drink at the proper age. Between 12 and 15.
I am not fully understanding how this Supreme Court finding relates to the Constitution. The Constitution is about the powers, obligations, and restrictions of the Federal government.
The Federal government was given the constitutional power in Section 8 To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
The Federal government's power to regulate Commerce among the several States was limited in Section 9 by this clause which says No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
It only negatively affects the state monopoly distributors. Everybody else wins.
It could be Section 9, para 5 "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." The monopoly wholesalers, with their cut, amount to a duty.
Perhaps, but the article referenced the Commerce Clause and not Section 9, para 5. In this context a duty is a tax charged by a government.
It's something called the dormant commerce clause. The logic goes something like this: when writing the constitution, the framers, by entrusting the regulation of commerce among the several states to Congress, essentially intended to create a free trade zone between the states. Section 9 backs this idea up, as you noted.
The idea here, then, is that no state can enact laws that will restrict the free flow of goods across state borders. It's really a pretty good idea, and I think it was basically the intent of the founders, even if tweaked a little.
I was honestly a little shocked that this was a 5-4 decision. Seemed sort of like a slam dunk to me.
The opinion is here (PDF). It seems to boil down to the 21st disallowing liquor sales in a state in violation of that state's laws, but those laws are apparently in violation of the Commerce Clause and numerous precedents involving state protectionist laws.
Unfortunately, this doesn't look like it will kill other state laws banning direct sales (in my state I can't even get certain liquors I like because the state store doesn't sell them, I have to go to another state). This was strictly about these states favoring in-state wineries over out-of-state wineries. Such protectionism between states is unconstitutional.
The Constitution says states can prohibit or regulate the importation of liquor.
The reason why I asked is I have a friend who inherited a Bud distributorship about a year ago. He sold it and bought a wine importing co. I told him he was nuts. How will this affect him?
I'm not sure, i'm not a lawyer. The ruling is specifically for states that allow in-state wineries to sell direct to the customer, but don't allow the same for out-of-state wineries. The initial reaction of the state has been to outlaw all direct shipments, so if he's in that state and they go through with it his position might even get better.
If he's in another state, well, check the laws.
The Supremes used the EU Constitution as a precedent.
So can I finally order wine off the internet?
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.