+- 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: MA. and direct shipping (/thread-2926.html)
- Thomas - 01-15-2010
KC,
Did you know that the 2006 MA ban on direct wine shipping from wineries producing more than 30,000 gals. a year has been deemed a violation of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution because it was designed to purposely discriminate against out of state wineries?
- Kcwhippet - 01-15-2010
Read the whole deal this morning after first hearing it on the news. This is actually the second loss for the ban. It was first struck down a year ago in a lower court, but an appeal was lodged by the MA Attorney General, Martha Coakley, at the urging of the Mass Beverage Control Commission backed by Wine and Spirits Wholesalers Assoc. This latest rebuff was from the Federal Appeals Court.
You all may have heard of Martha Coakley recently. She's a Democrat trying very hard to capture the "Kennedy seat" in the Senate. She's opposed by Republican Scott Brown, and as his numbers are surging her campaign has been running a huge number of campaign attack ads against him with partial information to make him look bad. All it's done is to make his numbers go up more. Now he's either even with her or slightly ahead, depending on the poll. I hope he wins, because it's about time someone came in to start to break up the Dems stranglehold on Massachusetts politics. As a for instance, the last three speakers of the MA House (all lawyers) have had criminal indictments lodged against them, and all have been disbarred. I could go on and on about the callous ways the Dem lawmakers have screwed the citizens here, but there's just not enough time. I mean, in a ballot referendum a few years back, we voted overwhelmingly for term limits and the legislators chose to disregard the will of the people and throw out the vote. It just goes on and on like that.
- hotwine - 01-15-2010
Mercy! It's going to take whole battalions of p.o.'d voters wielding brooms and pitchforks to send these yo-yos back to their caves.
We've got the same problem down here: the state-house is chock-a-block full of lawyers!
- Drew - 01-15-2010
Maryland's getting ready to vote on this in the new State legislative session.
Drew
- winoweenie - 01-15-2010
With the help of John McCain we kicked our archaic al;kie laws 4 years ago. It was so bad that it was a felony to ship wine from out-of-state to ourselves. WW
- TheEngineer - 01-16-2010
Does that mean that wineries can start to ship?
- Kcwhippet - 01-16-2010
That's what it means, but don't go looking for wineries to start shipping just because the appeal has been denied. I'm sure the wineries that don't now ship will be catious and wait to see what the MA lawmakers come back with. Also, I don't think UPS and FedEx will be rushing to accept shipments. The wineries and the shippers have too much to lose by shipping before full and final approval to do so is actually given.
- Thomas - 01-16-2010
Yes, and there's nothing in the appeal or in the 2005 Supreme's Granholm decision to prevent MA from making shipping an expensive and cumbersome licensing requirement.
As an aside, Craig Wolf, head of the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers Assoc. claims that the MA. court has acted to overturn the so-called "will of the people."
Mr. Wolf not only makes a ridiculous accusation, he also shows disdain for the US Constitution (as these are the guys who paid legislators to write the shipping rules). The Dormant Commerce Clause in the Constitution prevents states from practicing protectionism, whether or not it's the will of anyone to do so.
Wolf claims that the 21 st Amendment, Repeal, gave the states the right to do anything they want with regard to alcohol commerce. Taken to its extreme, his idiotic position would mean that states can set segregation rules in bars, restaurants and wherever else alcohol is sold, as long as it is the will of the people. Wolf's claim is either that of an idiot or a snake oil salesman.
[This message has been edited by foodie (edited 01-16-2010).]
- Kcwhippet - 01-16-2010
As to Craig's claim, I believe it's the latter of the two choices.
I had several discussions with Craig many years ago when he was the chief counsel and Juanita was heading up the WSWA. His position hasn't wavered an iota in over 15 years. He is such a pompous shill!