December 8, 2004

Wine and Commerce

Lynn Kiesling is a bit unhappy with Justice Souter. Her words to him: with all due respect, sir, bite me.

I second this.

The case argued before the Supremes yesterday has to do with interstate sale of wine, the commerce clause, and the 21st amendment. In the grand scheme of things this is pretty important stuff . Lynn's post has links to additional informative material.

I do, though, hate to see so many bright folks wasting energy on issues that should not even be up for discussion. A much more interesting and valuable constitutional amendment than some of the others that have been floated recently would be something like:

federal, state and local governments may not interfere with commerce between or amongst individuals and associations of individuals. Federal, state, and local governments may provide services for the adjudication of disputes related to fraud, theft, or contractual disagreement. Adjudicants may, by mutual agreement, use alternate dispute resolution services.
And strike the commerce clause, the 21st amendment and anything else gets in the way of me, Lynn, or anyone else making consensual exchanges of whatever we want to exchange domestically or internationally.

Posted by Steve on December 8, 2004
follow me on Twitter