Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (115421)	5/22/2005 2:22:37 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793917

Economic protectionism isn't within the police powers of the states, especially not when it violates the Commerce Clause. From what I read, the case that these products were in a different class due to the prohibition amendment and repeal has merit.

To: Ilaine who wrote (115421)	5/22/2005 2:29:01 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 793917

The wine-shipper's case was the clearest violation of the Commerce Clause I've seen since the early 19th century. Surely you haven't been around that long. vbg. The case was mildly difficult not only because of the language of the 21st Amendment but also because there existed a body of older Supreme Court cases which needed to be clarified. The dissenters' logic faltered when they suggested that some interference with the Commerce Clause was implicit in the fact that the 21st Amendment allows for some regulation of interstate commerce, including the regulation of importation of liquor, which it undoubtedly does. However, it does not allow out and out discrimination, a point they didn't deal with too well.