The Wine Wars Come To Tennessee
Tennessee has an unconstitutional ban on shipping or receiving alcoholic beverages. This is a particular problem for me because, after a bet on a certain election (also illegal in Tennessee), some folks owe a beer.
The Supreme Court is looking at the issue and apparently it could have an impact on local wineries:
The Tennessee Valley Winery in Loudon attracts customers from across the country.
“Hawaii, New York, Alaska, a lot of people from Montana,” says owner Tom Reed.
Visitors can buy more than 22 varieties of wine in person. But under the law, the winery can’t ship the bottles to home addresses out of state. It can only be sent to wine and liquor stores.
“I thought that you could do it. Just automatically could. Did not know there was a law that said I couldn’t do that,” says customer Kathy Loy of Campbell County.
“Some states are calling it a felony, which is two and half years in jail and a $20,000 fine,” says Reed. “So, it’s not worth doing it. Sometimes its just a slap on the hands.”
I hope the court does the right thing so I can collect my beers without driving. If I were Kevin, one of the Brutal Huggers, Chris, Xrlq, or Smijer, I’d be nervous.
December 8th, 2004 at 10:37 am
Discovered this recently while trying to get wine shipped up here from Key West. I managed to get it some alternate way, but it’s still very annoying.
December 8th, 2004 at 11:43 am
are you going to collet all at once
December 8th, 2004 at 1:32 pm
Umm, the 21st amendment specifically says that states can prevet out of state sales for liquor:
“Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.”
In general, you would be right — his is obviously something left ot the feds. But in this particulalr case, the COnstitution allows it. it seems very black letter, so I am wondering wehy its even at the SC.
December 8th, 2004 at 1:42 pm
Internet Wine Sales
SayUncle has a post about the Internet wine sales prohibitions before the Supreme Court. He calls the law unconstitutional. However,…
December 8th, 2004 at 7:55 pm
The lawsuits are filed against Michigan and New York, which allow in-state wine producers to ship directly to customers they have never seen, but don’t allow direct shipment by out of state producers. This discrimination against out of state sellers would be clearly unconstitutional for any non-alcoholic product under what lawyers call the “dormant commerce clause”. If I understand SayUncle’s summary of Tennessee law correctly, a victory in this suit won’t do a thing for him, because Tennessee bans all direct shipments, not just ones from out of state.
The plaintiffs argue that the clause in the 21st Amendment Kevin cites was intended only to allow states to enforce state and local bans and restrictions on alcoholic beverages, not to override the “dormant commerce clause” entirely in regards to alcohol. It means that if Oklahoma decided to remain “dry”, then one couldn’t get around their laws simply by ordering from out of state – but the plaintiffs argue that it doesn’t give any state permission to apply one set of laws to in-state sellers and another set of laws to out-of-state sellers.
Now, I am not a lawyer. I don’t see where the dormant commerce clause exists in the Constitution. I think it’s great policy to forbid such discrimination, which could lead to trade wars between states, and if the Constitution doesn’t do that, Congress ought to forbid it using its positive authority to regulate interstate trade.
December 9th, 2004 at 12:39 am
That pretty well sums up the idea behind the “dormant commerce clause” doctrine. The rationale is that the non-dormant commerce clause allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce, that the principal purpose for this clause was to ensure free trade between the states, and that Congress should therefore be presumed to have intended to prohibit whatever interstate protectionism it hasn’t affirmatively authorized. So it’s a misnomer when people (including lawyers) call a state law “unconstitutional” because of its effect on interstate commerce. If it were truly unconstitutional, Congress would not have the power to constitutionalize it by statute.