Economic protectionism between the states will be the sticking issue. This
cannot be allowed. Therefore I think that is what the court will actually
rule on none of the specific cases.

They will then send this -remand back to the lower courts with the
ruling....

-if any shipping of wine and spirits are allowed in intrastate than you must
allow interstate.

This will force the state to decide what is right for them.

This way the federal government can split the ruling while leaving the
outcome to each state.


"Tom S" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "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
>
>