Letters

Wines & Vines, April, 2003

".... women should be allowed to continue to vote...."

Editor:

I am a retailer in Virginia, I am in favor of direct shipment as long as I as a retailer am allowed to buy from wineries that are willing to ship to me for resale. Juanita Swedenburg (W & V Jan. 2003, pg. 128) does not care in the least that the local wine shop still will have to buy from the "gigantic wholesalers who are used to having their way," while she is allowed to undercut them significantly in price because she circumvents the evil three-tiered system. She is interested in only her own freedom and not mine or the wine retailers in New York.

Elizabeth Frater states that a lawyer for the wine wholesalers said that rat poison would end up in the wine, but makes no mention of his name. Is this to avoid a libel suit? This is tabloid reporting.

Section 2 of the 21st Amendment is, "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." There are those who would have you believe this violates the commerce clause of the original Constitution. Does the 15th Amendment violate Section 2 of Article IV of the original Constitution? Does the 16th Amendment violate the 10th Amendment? It is possible to ask an infuriating number of these questions.

The Constitution was amended to outlaw alcoholic beverages. To repeal this amendment took another amendment. In order to get three-fourths of the states' legislatures to approve this amendment it was written so that the states that wished to remain "dry" could. Certainly at the time of Repeal, more states remained "dry" than "wet." This was to insure their ratifying the 21st Amendment. Another amendment that repeals Section 2 of the 21st Amendment is needed to allow direct shipment. Would you like to know which 12, at least, states are not going to ratify this amendment?

When I started to retail wine, 25 years ago, I knew I had to buy from licensed wholesalers in Virginia. When Juanita Swedenburg started her winery she knew, or should have known, she couldn't ship directly to consumers in other states. Is this another former government bureaucrat who doesn't understand a longstanding law? Elizabeth Frater states that, "Ironically, the lawsuit was never intended to increase the demand for their wines or expand their customer base. 'We are small enough that we can concentrate on a small quantity.' Juanita says. 'But we run out of things all the time."' When someone says, "It's the principle and not the money," it's the money.

"No appellate court in this country has ever found a state's direct-shipping ban unconstitutional. We are confident the decision will be reversed." This is a quote by Randy M. Mastro, lawyer for the wholesaler giant Peerless, in Decanter (Mar. 2003, page 7). Why is he so confident? Because he knows that the laws of New York and most other states that ban direct shipment are in accordance with Section 2 of the 21st Amendment. Appellate judges are deemed superior, especially in Constitutional interpretation, to Judge Richard M. Berman.

If it does end up in front of the Supreme Court and they side with Juanita Swedenburg, then all of the Alcoholic Control Boards or Commissions in the 50 states will have to be disbanded and control states will have to dismantle their retail and wholesale operations. It's a ruse, but here in Virginia, profits from the ABC stores go, in large part by law, to education. Do you want to be seen taking the books out of the hands of school children?

I think that the Supreme Court will rule: women should be allowed to continue to vote, despite the fact the 19th Amendment is not in accord with the original Constitution; slavery shall remain illegal despite the fact the 13th Amendment is not in accord with the original Constitution; etc. I think that the Supreme Court will rule that the 21st Amendment changes the Constitution to allow states to do whatever they feel like in regard to the "delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors." That's what amendments do.

s/ George Ackerman

Warwick Cheese Shoppe

Newport News, VA 23606

via e-mail

(Obviously, this issue is not getting any less controversial. Guess we'll all have to wait and see. But thanks for the encouraging words on suffrage and slavery.--Ed.)

"...vegetarians... must be suffering from severe stomach problems..."

Editor:

I find it shocking that "ox blood" was used as you put it in your article ("California Says No To French Wine Ban," winesandvines.com 2/17/03) "traditionally" in wine manufacture as a coloring agent. Those who are vegetarians and would not go near meat--not to mention the blood of an ox--in their wine must be suffering from severe stomach problems upon reading this.

My grandfather made wine for over 30 years and nor once did he have to put "blood" in the wine to give his burgundy a lovely deep color. All wine that contains blood--and it appears it is a lot of wine produced prior to 1998--at least should be so labeled, so that the consumer understands that the contents of the bottle are a lot more than grape.