Monday, May 16, 2005
http://www.stripcreator.com/comics/choadwarrior/286198
Institute for Justice wins a battle: internet wine sales ok'd 5-4. story at scotusblog.
And yet, the lineup is odd, and the dissents have some persuasiveness.
Thomas dissents, joined by the CJ, O'Connor, and Stevens. Is that unique?
Stevens dissents, joined by O'Connor.
The issues are A)whether two obscure and ambiguous pieces of legislation by congress allow states to discriminate in commerce, and B) whether the 21st Amendment allows states to discriminate. A) could be fixed by better legislation, either for or against.
B) is trickier. It is a circular argument either way. The 21st allows states to regulate by law. A regulation which banned speech or required racial discrimination would not be law, because it would be unconstitutional. A regulation that discriminates against other states is either constitutional, and thus textually allowed by the 21st, or unconstitutional, and thus not covered by the 21st.
Either result can be obtained by assuming its conclusion.
The acts of congress can be criticized by saying they should be more explicit.
But a constitutional provision is supposed to be short and to the point, fleshed out later by the courts. So I can see how this could go either way.
If the 21st allows the states to withdraw from a national common market, congress can't fix that, and the states have little motive to, outside of reciprocity horsetrading.
Am I letting my policy preferences get in the way of good constitutional interpretation? I can't tell. So all in all I'm pleased, but with reservations.
Another bit of trivia: the 21st was ratified by state conventions, whereas the other amendments were ratified by state legislatures. Didn't know that.
When I began this post, Professor Bainbridge had not yet posted. Now he has.
Oh, and cres-cat Will Baude finds, veni, vino, vinci, vindication - his father had lost a 7th circuit case on the same issue, briderbaugh v freeman-wilson. I've done battle with freeman-wilson myself a time or two.
update: roger ebert review of mondovino, a movie which argues wine is being dumbed down. is the decision good or bad for wine? the usual answer is that trade is good and protectionism is bad, but let's see how this shakes out. ebert's review of revenge of the sith quoted woolcott gibbs. i think the line is from "bed of neuroses" which i have around here somewhere.
gibbs wrote for the new yorker, back in the day, and is unknown to 99.44% of star wars audiences. ebert's reviews, like gibbs' column, stand on their own; you don't need to see the movie.
Institute for Justice wins a battle: internet wine sales ok'd 5-4. story at scotusblog.
And yet, the lineup is odd, and the dissents have some persuasiveness.
Thomas dissents, joined by the CJ, O'Connor, and Stevens. Is that unique?
Stevens dissents, joined by O'Connor.
The issues are A)whether two obscure and ambiguous pieces of legislation by congress allow states to discriminate in commerce, and B) whether the 21st Amendment allows states to discriminate. A) could be fixed by better legislation, either for or against.
B) is trickier. It is a circular argument either way. The 21st allows states to regulate by law. A regulation which banned speech or required racial discrimination would not be law, because it would be unconstitutional. A regulation that discriminates against other states is either constitutional, and thus textually allowed by the 21st, or unconstitutional, and thus not covered by the 21st.
Either result can be obtained by assuming its conclusion.
The acts of congress can be criticized by saying they should be more explicit.
But a constitutional provision is supposed to be short and to the point, fleshed out later by the courts. So I can see how this could go either way.
If the 21st allows the states to withdraw from a national common market, congress can't fix that, and the states have little motive to, outside of reciprocity horsetrading.
Am I letting my policy preferences get in the way of good constitutional interpretation? I can't tell. So all in all I'm pleased, but with reservations.
Another bit of trivia: the 21st was ratified by state conventions, whereas the other amendments were ratified by state legislatures. Didn't know that.
When I began this post, Professor Bainbridge had not yet posted. Now he has.
Oh, and cres-cat Will Baude finds, veni, vino, vinci, vindication - his father had lost a 7th circuit case on the same issue, briderbaugh v freeman-wilson. I've done battle with freeman-wilson myself a time or two.
update: roger ebert review of mondovino, a movie which argues wine is being dumbed down. is the decision good or bad for wine? the usual answer is that trade is good and protectionism is bad, but let's see how this shakes out. ebert's review of revenge of the sith quoted woolcott gibbs. i think the line is from "bed of neuroses" which i have around here somewhere.
gibbs wrote for the new yorker, back in the day, and is unknown to 99.44% of star wars audiences. ebert's reviews, like gibbs' column, stand on their own; you don't need to see the movie.
Comments:
Post a Comment
