Supreme Court Allows Direct Shipment of Wine 448
jrrl writes "For a while now, ordering wine (of the alcoholic variety, not the almost 0.9 variety) online has been a somewhat dicey proposition in some states. But today, the Supreme Court overturned state laws that disallowed direct shipment of wine from out of state. Their reasoning is that the states' 'authority to regulate the sale of alcohol within their borders' under the 21st Amendment does not supersede 'the Constitution's ban on state discrimination against interstate commerce.' States could still disallow all direct shipments, but at least they have to be evenhanded now."
Commerce Clause (Score:5, Insightful)
Michigan isn't satisfied and is proposing banning all over-the-net wine orders on the flimsy reasoning that kids will be able to buy booze without government control.
When you have a weak argument, tell them you are legislating "to save the children".
Get it right, it is the constitution (Score:3, Insightful)
That is plain wrong.
The constitution grants congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.
A law regulating internet sale of alcohol will originate in congress. They might give some of the regulatory rights to states. Then it would be legal.
Re:Whew... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lets Drink! Opps. Sorry, was that your SISTER? (Score:5, Insightful)
States never, ever had the right to regulate interstate commerce. That power is reserved for congress.
The reason why is when we had the Articles of Confederation, every state regulated commerce, and it was a clusterfuck. It was like dealing with foriegn nations, all with their own tarrifs and trade policies.
This law has nothing to do with state rights, because it was never a state rights issue.
Re:Whew... (Score:5, Insightful)
Small wine/beer companies have zero chance to compete against the likes of Budweiser, Busch, Coors and other lousy products meshed with superior marketing.
I cannot tell you the list of wine/beer that I highly prefer, that I will never see in any restaurant. Why? Cause they'd rather stock 300 bottles of Budlight that they can sell.
Why this is on Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Gun control? (Score:4, Insightful)
So what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:yay (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, the old "government can only do one thing at a time" and "the citizenry can only think about one thing at a time" argument. Regardless, this was in front of the Supreme Court because it was brought there by people who wanted to see it resolved. If you think you can make a lucid case for congress not welding multiple topics into single bills/acts... have fun! That will never happen without an amendment, and that won't happen because it would completely paralyze the legislative process. Many bills, by definition and out of practical necessity, address several, dozens, or hundreds of "issues" at once. Constitutional language that would split the hairs on what is or is not a separate (enough) issue would be nearly impossible.
How about just voting for people that will carry on in a way more to your liking? And how about pursuading more people to do the same? That beats the hell out of during the legislative process into an unworkable stream of micro-incremental bits and pieces.
You Could Probably Make that Argument... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gun control? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lets Drink! Opps. Sorry, was that your SISTER? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gun control? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see: you've been on a trip to Napa Valley and went to a small vineyard there and bought a few bottles of a wine you enjoyed. Now back home, you'd like to get more of the same wine but can't find it at a retailer locally.
BTW, I don't really understand your comments: does the coffee taste the same everywhere (Mc Donalds, local Mom&Pop, Starbucks)? Is a burger from McDonalds the same as a burger from a fancy restaurant? I agree that some places are overrated but quality is something you have to pay for (not overpay though...)
Re:Save the fuckin' children, for chirsts sake! (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why involve the government in the equation?
Gasoline is a central nervous system depressant that can cause liver damage due to naturally occuring benzene that is expensive to remove.
Do you propose that children should be kept more than 15 meters from a gasoline pump? Kids are exposed to gasoline vapors while their parents are fueling their vehicles.
How about spray paint? Care to legislate the use of that material?
The fact is governmental attempts to control the or abuse of substances is expensive and bound to fail. You can argue that the damage done to individuals from substance abuse is a burden to society, while I can counter-point that the money spent to arrest, adjudicate, and incarcerate someone would be better spent on treatment.
Goverments are not good nannies.
Re:Get it right, it is the constitution (Score:1, Insightful)
What they are not allowed to do, however, is to create laws that prevent vendors from other states from enjoying the same opportunities to conduct business as those enjoyed by in-state vendors. To be in compliance with the commerce clause, states have to either block BOTH in-state and out-of-state vendors from selling direct to customers, or allow BOTH in-state and out-of-state vendors to do so. It's a protectionist trade policy which is not allowed. If there were concerns about, say, contaminants or alcohol content or some other issue, it may be a different matter becaue then it would not actually be an equal product.
They can prevent the sales, but the policy has to treat vendors within the state the same as it treats those outside of the state. *That's* where the violation comes from.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Starbucks is crap. Most coffee drinkers will agree on that they burn their beans. I wouldn't say music is easily comparable in good or bad for one genre or another.
Wine: there are some really crap wines out there. The only people who drink them are drinking it to get drunk. I didn't drink wine regularly until two years ago because I valued my brain cells over the poor quality of wines that I came across. I still don't like dry wines. But give me a nice ice wine or port and I'm quite happy. In fact, I spent last year's vacation in Portugal to explore ports. There are many things which make up a wine which aren't even present in the cheap crap: fruitiness (whether it tastes like bing cherries or apricots or pear even), acid, tannin, and how these are balanced. A lot of wines I try out are a little too high in acid to be drunk alone, but apply that acid to a pairing with cheese and it's the perfect compliment.
But back to your question of why would people buy wine over the internet: because their favorite wine is X miles away and they don't want to travel for it. There are really good wines that are sold a three hours drive away from me and I buy them over the internet because shipping is cheaper than the gas it would cost me to get up there and back. There are wines 400 miles away from me and in a different state and it would be great if I could get that specific wine that I like over the internet rather than have to travel there or order through a wine club with a heavy mark up.
And good wine isn't necessarily expensive either. I've found incredible ice wines at $20 where the average price goes for $60.
Life's too short for crap wine, killing brain cells with crap wine, and periods of time you don't remember because you were drunk off your ass (and excuses to act that way in the first place).
I'd have to know your niche to be able to make a comparison to explain. I'd say it is why a particular distro of linux is favored more than others.. and why all distros of linux are above and beyond your vending machine windows box.
Dong ma?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Please support your argument with real facts (Score:5, Insightful)
OK. Agreed.
Why not be able to have both unfettered school prayer AND legal drug use by adults?
We have legal school prayer. The only issue is whether an authority acting in government capacity can lead it or not. But of course, that's not "morality being imposed". That's only the government telling you how to pray. Completely different.
Isn't society better off when the individual is free and the government has a few defined tasks that it specializes on rather than becoming some monstrosity that has 50 bazillion departments that regulate everything from littering to education to the hair cut a toy poodle can have on sunday?
Where's the poodle part? Not aware of that. The government has evolved to be big. How would you know how large it should be? Oh that's right, you're making practical decisions based on idealogical principles! How silly of me! We don't need any evidence that it could work in a modern society! Count me in!
It was the will of most whites for much of our history to keep blacks down.
For the first ones, it really depends on how you define "most". In 1861 (over 100 years ago, thus further than over half our history ago), a man was elected president from a new party founded on the basis of abolishing slavery. He recieved most of the popular vote. Most of the founding fathers were against slavery in principle, but saw no way out of it (many freed their slaves after their death).
It was the will of most Germans to elect Hitler.
Hitler never got the majority of the popular vote so I fail to see how that's most. His high was somewhere around 1/3. In fact, if the laws written in the Weimar constitution were actually followed, Hitler would've never had vast sweeping powers. But Hitler decided he didn't need a big government making laws and abolished the government by fiat He could do it himself! I guess you and he do have something in common!
(As a caveat, disolving the representitive body in England caused a civil war a few hundred years ago. The Germans had no such response in the 1930's, so maybe I'll give you popular acquiescence, but no doubt caused by popular fear).
Seriously, I enjoy your principles, but where you go with it and how you derive it are simply ranting. If I want sensationalism, I'll watch Jerry Springer.
Re:Save the fuckin' children, for chirsts sake! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:yay (Score:3, Insightful)
One can argue that software engineering is a flawed enough system without using it as a model for unrelated activities, but I think that a requirements gathering process would be useful in the legislative process in the U.S.A.
Each bill should have a well-defined purpose and anything that doesn't deal with that purpose should be eliminated. There must be other means of compromise in the Congress besides the practice of lumping unrelated issues into budget approvals and omnibus acts.
When I purchase a sandwich at a deli, I don't expect to have to pay for aluminum siding, so why does a bill about funding for troops in Iraq have to have unfunded federal mandates on driver's licenses?
The biggest problem here is that states have lost their sovreignty in the pursuit of federal funding.
Re:yay (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with this is most bills could never be passed because the consituency for many problems isn't large enough to push the bill through. (I guess some would argue that that would be a good thing, but I am not one of them.) For example, a typical bill related to agriculture only affects states with large farming industries, but there are plenty of people who couldn't care less. So to bring other groups on board, you have to add additional benefits to the bill. This is what happens when you have to get 535 people to come to an agreement on something.
Re:Save the fuckin' children, for chirsts sake! (Score:3, Insightful)
I just can't imagine many 15 year olds out there buying 20 dollar bottles of wine to get drunk on. Wouldn't they just get a 18+ friend to buy some cheap beer for them? It has been a while, but that is what always happened when I was in high school. Besides, the current law in many states allow internet sales of wine within the state so the kids could already do this; they just can't order a California Chardonnay. I am very disappointed that there are 4 Supreme Court justices that bought this lame "save the children" argument and dissented on this.
Re:Save the fuckin' children, for chirsts sake! (Score:1, Insightful)
However, kids CAN get debit cards which are just as good as credit cards. Failing that, they'll just get someone to buy the alcohol for them, just like what happens with almost every teenager who wants to drink.
The stupid part of the whole minors drinking alcohol issue is the idea they somehow magically become mature and responsible when they turn 21 (or 18). Instead of enforcing the laws against drunk driving and adding stiff penalties, they think they can somehow solve the problem by making it illegal for us to drink period.
A government by the people or against the people?
Re:Save the fuckin' children, for chirsts sake! (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when did kids have to order expensive wine over the net to get drunk? It is not a problem. Kids do not have that good of taste, nor are they willing to spend that kind of money when they don't have to. They will get ripped on anything at hand, including American beer. They are not going to buy mail order wine to do that.
This idea that this is to "save the children" is incredibly bogus. The real reason is to protect the in-state wine distributors from any competition.
Anyone who uses the excuse that something is to "save the children", it almost never is. There is always some other agenda in play. Most people are too clueless to see it, however.
Re:Commerce Clause (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Geek/Wine Interface Is Now Complete (Score:2, Insightful)
Maryland (including Mont. County) can continue to set up whatever restrictions on wine sales it desires as long as it applies to all wine evenly.