+- WineBoard (https://www.wines.com/wineboard)
+-- Forum: RESOURCES AND OTHER STUFF (https://www.wines.com/wineboard/forum-300.html)
+--- Forum: Wine and Politics (https://www.wines.com/wineboard/forum-7.html)
+--- Thread: LEGAL ACTION IN TEXAS (/thread-2912.html)
- Jerry D Mead - 04-27-1999
PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT LEGAL ACTION OF THE PAST 60 YEARS!
A legal team headed up by Sterling Steves of Lane, Ray, Wilson, Carr & Steves of Fort Worth and Mark Harwell and Mark Cotham of Cotham, Harwell & Evans in Houston filed an action before Judge Melinda Harmon in Federal District Court.
The suit (if this layman understands correctly) claims that the Texas law which restricts all personal importation to that which is personally carried in by the individual, and even that limited to 3 gallons, makes both the Texan importing from another state and the merchant or vintner shipping wine from another state guilty of a crime.
And that the statute outlining this law violates the consumer's constitutional and civil rights by denying them their rights under the Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Not only does the suit ask that the court find in favor of the plaintiff consumers, but that both a temporary and permanent injunction against the Texas ABC and the Attorney General prohibiting enforcement of the law and that the court provide the plaintiffs with appropriate attorneys fees, expert fees and costs.
Go get 'em guys. JDM
- Thomas - 04-27-1999
As I read I heard an organ play and the god of wine sang: Let Us Pray!
- Bucko - 04-28-1999
This has long been awaited, and the ONLY way that the issue is ever going to be resolved fairly IMO.
- amshih - 04-28-1999
It's going to be a looong battle, but the fight will be worth it. Go get 'em! And keep your eye out for similar lawsuits in your own state.
- EPICURUS - 04-28-1999
Whether via Naxon or some other mechanism, the wholesalers in league with the regulating tax collectors will see to it that a three tier system for obtaining even one bottle of an obscure wine will be put in place shortly. Such a system will satisfy the constitutional right to access, making all such law suits null and void.
- Thomas - 04-28-1999
What? Will wholesalers agree to distribute any and all wines produced? If so, I suggest producers try to force sales goals on the b.....ds!
- Jerry D Mead - 04-28-1999
Epi..You haven't read this lawsuit...I have. The suit is a civil rights suit based on the Constitutional guarantees under the Commerce Clauses giving us all the right to do business with anyone we wish, in any state we wish, without protective tariffs or other trade restraints. Even existing local availability would not be a defense against this suit.
If a consumer wants to buy a given bottle of wine that's available down the street from a merchant 3000 miles away and incur all the shipping costs involved...that is his Constitutional right the way I read it and the way this legal action is designed.
That's why I call it the most important piece of wine legislation in the past 60 years.
JDM
- amshih - 04-29-1999
The crux of these lawsuits is that state governments cannot treat out-of-state shipments differently than in-state shipments. Most states allow shipment of alcohol within the state, but raise a big stink when the alcohol comes from an out-of-state supplier. From my view as a consumer, it shouldn't make ANY difference where I buy the alcohol -- if taxes and ID are the true issues, I'm willing to pay my taxes and show my ID.
The Interstate Commerce Clause in the Constitution forbids states from favoring in-state interests at the expense of out-of-state interests -- in other words, no in-state protectionism. But the 21st Amendment mucks things up because it gives states the right to regulate alcohol. So now the question becomes: how much can a state regulate alcohol without violating the Interstate Commerce Clause? What restrictions are OK and what ones aren't?
That's why these lawsuits are being filed -- we're arguing that states are overstepping their Constitutional boundaries, and we're also arguing that a state's violation of the Commerce Clause constitutes a violation of consumers' civil rights.
[This message has been edited by amshih (edited 04-29-99).]
[This message has been edited by amshih (edited 04-29-99).]