Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution empowers the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".
No matter what you say about states rights, no matter what your concerns about local businesses being impacted by either on-line, catalog or phone sales, states do not have the right to regulate interstate commerce.
Why are boutique wineries being punished because states want to control interstate commerce? Because, in my opinion, they can get away with it!
I have got a feeling that there is more of a threat to local tax bases and local businesses from Amazon and other e-tailers (not to mention catalog sales) than there is from wineries.
To me the laws, as they exist now, are about interstate commerce and not about controlling the sale of alcohol.
I live in CA and my desire to be able to have wine shipped from my NY brother-in-law to his CA sister (no sale involved) is due to a CA “reciprocity” law not a NY law. I am a CA constituent, not a NY one. CA may be trying to pressure other states to allow CA wines to shipped to other states by banning wineries in states that ban CA wine shipments from shipping to CA, but again that is a trade policy and that, I believe, violates the commerce clause.
If states want to ban any and all alcohol shipments, including same state shipments, I think they arguably have the right to do so under the 21st amendment, but as soon as they discriminate, as soon as they start to favor and allow their own in state wineries to ship and not out of state wineries, as soon as they change the playing field to favor their own alcohol shippers (and that includes laws of reciprocity,) as soon as they allow some shipments and not others; I believe they are interfering with interstate commerce and I believe only the feds can do that.
No comments:
Post a Comment