That's not precisely what they're saying. New York and Michigan similarly, despite the 21st Amendment, could not violate the 14th Amendment and allow wine shipment only to whites, for example.

The 21st Amendment, while reserving the power to regulate alcohol sales to the states, does not allow them to infringe on other rights at the same time.

IANAL, but wow, the 21rst amendment is badly written.

2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

By the Federal government: Who cares! By private citizens: Or what?

I *think* it was meant to say that if a state chooses to prohibit alcohol, it may prohibit import (commerce clause notwithstanding), but it doesn't actually say that! If anything, it would only seem to give Congress the power to make it a federal crime to import alcohol to a state against local law...

Mike - It does seem as though, taken literally, it is tautologous - hereby prohibiting precisely that conduct which is already illegal by virtue of other laws. They should have phrased it in the form of a grant of power to regulate. I assume the authors were sloshed at the time it was written.

Mr. Thacker is quite right. The case is about differential treatment of internet based wine sales, not about whether such sales can be controlled in general by the states. NY and Michigan would be free to ban all mail order wine even if they lost the case. What they would not be able to do is control it based on the state of origin.

This is an easy one. The problem is that State X has laws discriminating against businesses in other States. State X can't do that. If State X wants to allow wine sales within State X, it must allow businesses from other states to sell wine in State X.

That'll be the decision, all gussied up and scholarly.

Seven:

"The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited."

AOG: If Michigan wants to ban all mail-order wine, it will have to do it for "health reasons," or "to prevent underage drinking," or some such. It can't do it only to help its own businesses.

Seven:

"The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited."

OJ: The Court will say that any State can make a certain type of alcohol illegal but, if a type of alcohol is legal, then all of it is legal. The Supremes have a long, storied history of constantly disabusing States of the idea that they can throw up trade barriers against each other.

I stand by my prediction. We'll see what happens.

Unfortunately, the 21st Amendment clearly distinguishes the "transportation or importation into any State" from transportation within a State. So the two types of transportation cannot be equated for equal protection purposes. In any case, the 21st Amendment was ratified after the putatively contrary clauses, and therefore must supersede any contrary clauses. As judge, therefore, I would have to side with oj and against AOG.

As a voter, however, I seek a 28th Amendment. Free wine for everybody!

Once again it has been shown that the Constitution of the United States is unconstitutional.

Apparently 4 pages are not enough. Maybe something like 418 pages would do the trick.

Clearly, this kind of one-upsmanship for in-state firms over out-of-state ones in the same industry is the kind of nonsense the Commerce Clause was designed to avoid. If Florida can't tax new car registrations from out-of-staters moving in, why should they be permitted to bar people from patronizing out-of-state wineries?

Based on the commerce clause, the interstate commerce clause, and the equal protection clause, the entire remainder of the Constitution is unconstitutional in practice.

Only a formal ratification of the fact remains, but I doubt we'll see that.

"Before Casey can attempt to distinguish Bacchus, Kennedy jumps in to say that it's not enough that that case 'involved pineapple wine.' Ginsburg quotes language from Bacchus stating that "one thing is certain: the central purpose of the 21st Amendment was not to empower states to favor local liquor industries by erecting barriers to competition."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2110771/

OJ: I would not bet me.