Wine Lover Update
According to my just arrived Free the Grapes newsletter, Texass has become the 27th state to support limited, regulated direct to consumer wine shipments.
Authored by State Senator Frank Madla (D-San Antonio), and signed into law May 9 by Governor Perry, the bill declared the entire state “wet” for wine shipments. On June 26, 2003, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that Texas’ ban on interstate direct wine shipments was unconstitutional. Later that year, the Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission declared that the state was “open” for direct shipments but ruled that all wineries must comply with existing wet and dry rules. This requirement limited direct shipments because the definitions of wet and dry areas were not defined by zip codes. Senator Madla’s bill resolved this issue by making the entire state wet and gained the support of the Texas ABC and local wineries. The bill also requires licensed wineries to pay excise and sales taxes, creating a new source of revenue for the state.
They also noted:
Separately, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in May or June on the December 7 argument that considered whether or not the 21st Amendment permits states to allow intra-state shipments from its wineries to consumers, but deny that same privilege to out-of-state wineries.
Jeez louise, I hope they come through on this, as I’m stuck in one of the backwoods bastions that’ll be affected. Bingley has to have lovely presents of wine bottles shipped to a friend of ours in AL. (I get to do a daring border run to pick them up. Five minutes away, okay, but it is another state. Well, actually damn near a third world country, but I digress.) The FL wholesalers have the legislature so tightly wrapped that wine can’t come into the state UNLESS it goes through them first. What a racket. (Of course, the MADD and Christian anti-alcohol bunch have their puddies in the mix, too.) Then there’s the emotional appeal about protecting the children ~ if one allows internet wine sales and has children online, one has drunken children. Everyone knows they are incapable of not ordering that $50 bottle plus $15 shipping. Or for 12 year olds with a real problem, 2 or 3 or 4 bottles, and just knockin’ ’em back around the Nintendo.
Hmmm. Maybe I’ve been wrong all along. I mean, look what happened with Bingley and his Atari and Crusader and…
Forget everything I said.
Swill Food and Grog | tree hugging sister | 
May 11, 2005 12:11 pm
Subscribe
I think I’ve mentioned this before, but while I’m all for interstate direct shipments of alcohol being made as easy as possible legislatively, I also don’t think impediments to it are unconstitutional and if the US Supreme Court decides otherwise, it’ll be one more reason to be embarassed by them. The 21st Amendment repealed federal prohibition, but it also expressly authorized the states to regulate alcohol, up to and including banning it, so they logically are (and have been held to be, up until now) capable of doing anything short of that, too. It’s both later in time AND more specific than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce, so it should trump that.
I will nod in agreement about the Supreme Court, but, as an affected (?!) individual, I’m also secretly glad they’re willing to take a look. That’s the nice thing about this particular organization ~ it tracks all the hot stuff by state and what the respective legislatures are doing about it. They also are kind enough to provide a template for protest that goes to the appropriate mucky mucks, or to cut and paste to your own reps. For example:
The downside is that my state goobers also represent the county next to us, a DRY county, that’s famous for most churches per square mile in the country. They’re in a battle to buy a bottle on their block or with dinner, less mind internet wise, spawning letters like this in the paper:
The wetties?!
Their Depends leaked?
I think it’s more cranial fluid leaking, from the sound of it.
“limited, regulated direct to consumer”??
Free the Grapes!!!
“On June 26, 2003, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that Texas’ ban on interstate direct wine shipments was unconstitutional.”
I gather that the Texas ban was unconstitutional for prohibiting interstate shipments but allowing intrastate shipments. Otherwise, I don’t see how the 5th Circuit could hold that opinion. As Dave said, the amendment is pretty damned explicit as constitutional amendments go.
Interesting observation, and Dave, correct me if my reading is incorrect, but I read the second section of the amendment as making it a federal crime to violate state liquor laws. That certainly seems to be the plain English reading of it:
Dave, any comment?
Let My Grapes Go!
Gosh, Bingley, you sound so (dare I say it?) wrathful.
{she erupts in peels of laughter}
Norman Vincent Peel, right?
Hmm, why does the government feel the need to stem the flow of wine?
They have to or you get a bottleneck.
That seems to be the popular sediment.
I think these jokes are down to the dregs.
Which reminds me of one of the greatest TV lines ever: When Larry (of the brothers Darryl) says of a batch of county jail prisoners, “There go the dregs of humanity.”
I gotta go catch a Cab
Vino where you’re going!
Quit your darn wineing!
Aw, put a cork in it, ya crab.
*thinks*
If only they would ban merlot..
*ducks*
There’ll pinot more smart ass *ducks* from you young man, understood??!!
I’m with Pete on that one: Merlot brings the word “wine” into disrepute.
Ken, yes, that would be my guess as to a legitimate reason for what the Fifth Circuit did. State laws that discriminate against out-of-state actors violate the “Privileges and Immunities” Clause of Article IV, as well as arguably the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. These prohibitions are not trumped by the 21st Amendment because they don’t by necessity conflict with it.
I like how that Bledsoe dude focuses on the abuse of alcohol as a reason to ban the use, but neglects everything about the sudden sharp increase in organized crime after Prohibition began. Are drunks worse than murder, extortion, or leg-breaking?
For the record, the 2003 numbers from Santa Rosa county. In 2002, their index per 100,000 was lower than their neighboring counties, but their populations are also higher, and there is a strong correlation of increasing rates to population all through the chart.
I find that the real key to his argument was that Santa Rosa already gets its fair share of liquor taxes. Maybe, since you don’t sell any yourselves, your fair share should be ZERO, sir. To profit off of it while calling it immoral and refusing to participate is rather… odd…
I’m with Pete on that one…
Pffft.
{And you’re a poophead.}
There’ll pinot more smart ass *ducks* from you young man, understood??!!
Yippee! I’m young again!
By the way, you go, you tree-hugging prophetess! Sister 1, Bledsoe 0.
Dave, am I reading it right that the amendment literally makes it a federal crime to violate the state laws?
Ooooh, FLY! Nicely done!! Creampuff to you, old man.
Santa Rosa allows beer sales and some other treacly swill, but no wines/liquor, so maybe that’s what he’s calling ‘their share’. In reality, there are two Santa Rosa’s. North of I-10, which is a hotbed of 1930’s Christianity in all it’s intolerant piety. The southern end used to be a sleepy little enclaves of fisherfolk, peanut farmers or beach dwellers who wanted cheap beach peace and quiet, unlike what Pensacola Beach was becoming. Not much of a voting block there, and the six folks voting for a wet county would go down in flames each referendum. Plus, P-cola Bch, although technically Santa Rosa County, had been exempted and had liquor stores/bars (which may also be where he gets the ‘our share of taxes’ line), so you could scoot down the island to get a bottle. Now, fast forward 40 years and the demographics have changed hugely. You have quarter to million dollar homes as the norm, tons of big buck condos going up and high end grocery stores being built to feed all these sophisticates and they can’t buy a bottle of wine? (They also have to drive 30 miles to get a drink with dinner, which means no restaurant worth it’s salt can survive.) I don’t see them standing for it too much longer.
How can one eat without wine?
Two words, Bings – Taco Bell.
:::shudder:::
“Dave, am I reading it right that the amendment literally makes it a federal crime to violate the state laws?”
Well, yes and no. (How’s that for a weaselly lawyer answer?) It prohibits it, but, of course, doesn’t actually provide any penalties; nor does it fully define the crime, like treason (the only crime defined in the federal constitution). Thus, without implementing legislation by Congress, you couldn’t be prosecuted federally for violating state liquor laws (although the feds might still arguably be able to prosecute you for CONSPIRING to do so under the general federal conspiracy statute). However, there is exactly such legislation. See 18 U.S.C. § 1262.
(Never weasely ~ but you’re still a poophead.)