On the face of it, who can object to the Supreme Court’s decision that permits wine consumers to buy directly from out-of-state wineries? This is just the free market at work. The state laws that prohibited the practice were nothing but a legal leftover from prohibition days and a mercantilist privilege granted to politically powerful distributors who thought only of their monopoly.The commerce clause of the Constitution is good for nothing if not to prevent this kind of state-to-state protectionism.
Right? Well, that is the impression you get from those who are toasting and celebrating and proclaiming a glorious day for wine lovers. But there is also the not-small matter of federalism. FULL ARTICLE ON LRC
{ 3 comments }
You bring up an interesting point that has always befuddled me. It seems to me that local governments tend to be quite oppressive and socialistic. They plan, zone, and code everything in sight. It seems that a person can’t do anything without getting a permit and paying a fee. Property rights are constantly trampled. To me, the oppressiveness of local governments is a forum that is largely unaddressed by this BLOG. I think it would be an interesting one.
Seems to me a shortcoming of our setup was to not hardwire “consensualism” thoroughly into the constitutions of this country. Something so simple as the right to say “no thanks” would have prevented much of what has gone wrong. Absent such a clause enshrining such a right, you can darn well guarantee that private property will be an extremist concept.
Lew has gotten this one wrong. This decision does not enhance the power of the central state. It simply restores the open internal market that was established in 1789 by the Constitution. Like it or not, the Constitution does have an interstate commerce clause, and this is exactly what the framers meant it to do. This is a rare time in history when the interstate commerce clause is actually used for its original purpose of promoting freedom of trade instead of empowering regulatory encroachments of it.
I agree with Lew on the danger of giving the central state any *new* powers, and also with the general point that the Constitution was itself an unfortunate consolidation of power. However, libertarians should celebrate this decision as a turning back of the clock of constitutional interpretation.
Comments on this entry are closed.