"BFSON" > wrote in message
...
> From one of the legal papers, here's as summary of the issue as pending at
the
> US Supreme Court: "The wine dispute pits the Constitution's commerce
clause,
> which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, against
the
> 21st Amendment. That amendment ended Prohibition in 1933 and gave states
> considerable power to regulate the transport of alcoholic beverages.
>
> The court, in granting review in the wine cases, consolidated them and
asked
> parties to confine their arguments to the following question: "Does a
state's
> regulatory scheme that permits in-state wineries directly to ship alcohol
to
> consumers but restricts the ability of out-of-state wineries to do so
violate
> the dormant commerce clause in light of Sec. 2 of the 21st Amendment?" The
> dormant commerce clause doctrine generally prohibits state actions
affecting
> interstate commerce, unless Congress has affirmatively authorized states
to
> regulate a given area."
>
> Not an easy question, esp. since this court has been very protective of
states
> rights as well often recognizing the dormant commerce clause.

------------

Why do you say it's "not an easy question"? The crux of the matter is:
"gave states considerable power to regulate the transport of alcoholic
beverages.". What are the particulars of "considerable powers"? Could some
of them be unconstitutional?

This should be a fairly cut and dried matter: Protectionism vs. Free
Trade - but someone is trying to obfuscate the issue.

Please don't tell me I'm wrong! =8^0

I, for one, would like the United States legal code, when addressing matters
that encompass _most_ of our United States, to be more uniform within our
borders. Therefore, I am on the side of the small wineries, and against the
distributors, on this issue.

Note my bias: I make wine that I intend to sell to retailers or customers
directly. Still, I think I'm on the correct side of this issue. Why do
you, the consumers*, need an extra couple or more sets of hands imposed in
the transaction between you and the winery when it isn't necessary or
voluntary, and contributes nothing to the goods sold except ?XTRA _CO$T_?

[ *Or _I_ for that matter, when I'm shopping for some wine! ]

We'll know in December, but I expect a ruling that permits wineries to
freely conduct interstate commerce directly to end users, at least by mail.
That would only _slightly_ damage the big distributors, but the small
wineries would benefit _greatly_.

The fact that this is going to the Supreme Court is quite significant. Do
we know which among the 9 Justices
like(s) wine?

Crossin' my fingers and nose on this one...

Tom S