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: €œDoes 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.

"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

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
>
>

dick wrote:
> 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....

There was a strong move in Congress to pass a federal anti-shipping bill
several years ago but its author, Strom Thurmond, is now dust. I believe
the court's view will represent the right wing Christian Coalition that
put them on the bench and avoid striking down the paragraph in the 21st
amendment that allows states to impose these laws. The simple way to do
this is to remand it back to the state. The Supremes could be accused
of making laws if they do anything else.

Now there is Ken Starr who thought he was more important than the
president awhile back. Maybe he has some tricks to prevent the simple
solution.

Tom S wrote:


> 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?

Tom,
It's not an easy _legal_ question. The Constitution specifically
cedes its authority to any Amendments, thus the Commerce Clause has
generally been held to be subordinate to the 21st Amendment's granting
the regulation of alcohol commerce to the States. The 21st Amendment
CANNOT be unconstitutional specifically because it IS the Constitution.
However, the Supremes could rule that various forces within the States
(i.e., distributors) have corrupted these rules for their own economic
gain, and that it therefore constitutes an illegal support for
monopolistic activities. Don't hold your breath, though. I think that
Dick's prediction is on the money...

Mark Lipton

Mark, my only concern is that the courts even decided to hear the case. In
so many situations like this they do nothing.

Logic would dictate to remand to lower courts and advise that there cannot
be any economic protection and let each state decide what to do. That said
since that is pretty much where it is today why did they decide to hear the
case?


"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
...
> Tom S wrote:
>
>
> > 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?
>
> Tom,
> It's not an easy _legal_ question. The Constitution specifically
> cedes its authority to any Amendments, thus the Commerce Clause has
> generally been held to be subordinate to the 21st Amendment's granting
> the regulation of alcohol commerce to the States. The 21st Amendment
> CANNOT be unconstitutional specifically because it IS the Constitution.
> However, the Supremes could rule that various forces within the States
> (i.e., distributors) have corrupted these rules for their own economic
> gain, and that it therefore constitutes an illegal support for
> monopolistic activities. Don't hold your breath, though. I think that
> Dick's prediction is on the money...
>
> Mark Lipton

dick wrote:

> Mark, my only concern is that the courts even decided to hear the case. In
> so many situations like this they do nothing.
>
> Logic would dictate to remand to lower courts and advise that there cannot
> be any economic protection and let each state decide what to do. That said
> since that is pretty much where it is today why did they decide to hear the
> case?

You got me, Dick. FWIW, this current court (1994-present) is as
unpredictable a Supreme Court as I've seen in my lifetime. My only
guess is that someone feels that there's an angle to this case that
hasn't already been addressed ad nauseum in previous decisions. Either
that, or Ken Starr has bought off 5 Justices. ;-)

Mark Lipton

Look at the conspiracy theory:

1) Religous right is behind this.
2) The court rules to support state rights
3) The court rules to avoid economic protectionism
4) Remand to lower courts letting each state decide what poison the
administer
5) In the wording of the ruling have something there to back in to roe v
wade that supports state rights on abortion laws.
6) Affects more then wine.

That would be my guess if I were doing JFK--Oliver Stone method.

The end:-)


"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
...
> dick wrote:
>
> > Mark, my only concern is that the courts even decided to hear the case.
In
> > so many situations like this they do nothing.
> >
> > Logic would dictate to remand to lower courts and advise that there
cannot
> > be any economic protection and let each state decide what to do. That
said
> > since that is pretty much where it is today why did they decide to hear
the
> > case?
>
> You got me, Dick. FWIW, this current court (1994-present) is as
> unpredictable a Supreme Court as I've seen in my lifetime. My only
> guess is that someone feels that there's an angle to this case that
> hasn't already been addressed ad nauseum in previous decisions. Either
> that, or Ken Starr has bought off 5 Justices. ;-)
>
> Mark Lipton

On 27 May 2004 03:10:20 GMT, (BFSON) wrote:

>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."
>
From Tuesday's (Portland) Oregonian:

"The historical basis for the (state) structure, as recognized by this
court, is to protect against the collusion, price-fixing and
monopolization problems that existed before Prohibition," lawyers for
Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm wrote in the state's appeal.
[end quote]

They're saying that the present system protects against all these
things? Things that existed "before prohibition"? Let's see, how many
years ago was that? Gee, somewhere around ninety years. How many wine
distributors/wholesalers are there in Michigan today? How many were
there, say, ten years ago. A lot fewer, I'd be willing to bet. If the
politicians really believe this sort of crap, we're all in trouble.

Vino
To reply, add "x" between
letters and numbers of
e-mail address.

On Fri, 28 May 2004 02:53:52 GMT, Vino > wrote:
How many wine
>distributors/wholesalers are there in Michigan today? How many were
>there, say, ten years ago? A lot fewer,

I meant "more" of course.

> I'd be willing to bet. If the
>politicians really believe this sort of crap, we're all in trouble.
>
>Vino
>To reply, add "x" between
>letters and numbers of
>e-mail address.

To reply, add "x" between
letters and numbers of
e-mail address.

>Logic would dictate to remand to lower courts and advise that there cannot
>be any economic protection and let each state decide what to do. That said
>since that is pretty much where it is today why did they decide to hear the
>case?

Haven't the lower courts been inconsistent in the "in state vs. out of state
wineries" question? I believe that one decision said it was okay to
discriminate against out of state wineries, ie allow direct shipping for in
state wineries, and disallow it for out of state wineries. Other decisions have
said that states could not discriminate.

Given that the Supreme Court wants the plaintiffs to confine their arguments to
this question, it sounds like the Court wishes to rule on this narrow question.


I suspect the Supreme Court will continue to allow state to regulate alcohol
sales and distribution, but will rule that states cannot treat out of state
wineries differently than those located in state. In this case, states could
still choose to disallow all direct shipping.

I don't see how this case has anything to do with other issues, eg. Roe vs
Wade, Christianity, or even internet sales in general?

It is unlikely the Court will accept Michigan's claim that the three-tier
system promotes competition. There is not an economist outside the liquor
industry who would support such a position. But I don't think the Court is
trying to rule (at least in this case) whether the three-tier system stifles
competition.

Tom Schellberg

For reasons I cannot explain I do not accept this on surface level that the
supreme court is looking at this for reasons stated. One or more than one
of the justices want to define states rights.

That is the very essence of other rulings.

Guess I have seen one to many Oliver Stone movies.



"Xyzsch" > wrote in message
...
> >Logic would dictate to remand to lower courts and advise that there
cannot
> >be any economic protection and let each state decide what to do. That
said
> >since that is pretty much where it is today why did they decide to hear
the
> >case?
>
> Haven't the lower courts been inconsistent in the "in state vs. out of
state
> wineries" question? I believe that one decision said it was okay to
> discriminate against out of state wineries, ie allow direct shipping for
in
> state wineries, and disallow it for out of state wineries. Other decisions
have
> said that states could not discriminate.
>
> Given that the Supreme Court wants the plaintiffs to confine their
arguments to
> this question, it sounds like the Court wishes to rule on this narrow
question.
>
>
> I suspect the Supreme Court will continue to allow state to regulate
alcohol
> sales and distribution, but will rule that states cannot treat out of
state
> wineries differently than those located in state. In this case, states
could
> still choose to disallow all direct shipping.
>
> I don't see how this case has anything to do with other issues, eg. Roe vs
> Wade, Christianity, or even internet sales in general?
>
> It is unlikely the Court will accept Michigan's claim that the three-tier
> system promotes competition. There is not an economist outside the liquor
> industry who would support such a position. But I don't think the Court is
> trying to rule (at least in this case) whether the three-tier system
stifles
> competition.
>
> Tom Schellberg

On Thu, 27 May 2004 17:58:13 GMT, "dick"
> wrote:


>Logic would dictate to remand to lower courts and advise that there cannot
>be any economic protection and let each state decide what to do. That said
>since that is pretty much where it is today why did they decide to hear the
>case?

If they allow the states to make their own decisions in this case, what
happens is rampant protectionism that is inconsistent because each state
does it the way they think will best benefit them?
Is this wrong? depends on how one views the Constitution.
Traditionally, the Court would say that the states cannot engage in that
type of activity and invoke the "Dormant Commerce Clause" as reasoning
to this effect. However, I would say that -at the very least-
Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas will uphold the states' rights to engage
in this type of economic protectionism as they tend to apply a more
Federalist viewpoint when adjudicating these matters.


K

wow, adjudicating, thats a big word to digest:-)

I do think they will uphold states rights, but not sure in a day of free
trade that they can allow economic protectionism. That will be the
question.

"Kevin" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 17:58:13 GMT, "dick"
> > wrote:
>
>
> >Logic would dictate to remand to lower courts and advise that there
cannot
> >be any economic protection and let each state decide what to do. That
said
> >since that is pretty much where it is today why did they decide to hear
the
> >case?
>
> If they allow the states to make their own decisions in this case, what
> happens is rampant protectionism that is inconsistent because each state
> does it the way they think will best benefit them?
> Is this wrong? depends on how one views the Constitution.
> Traditionally, the Court would say that the states cannot engage in that
> type of activity and invoke the "Dormant Commerce Clause" as reasoning
> to this effect. However, I would say that -at the very least-
> Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas will uphold the states' rights to engage
> in this type of economic protectionism as they tend to apply a more
> Federalist viewpoint when adjudicating these matters.
>
>
> K