|
|
Charivari (Fall 1999)States' rights to destroy the US Constitution? I don't think so!by Wilhelm Franke All this fuss over the growing presence of Confederate flags flying boldly across this great nation is plumb silly. That flag represents State’s Rights. And why shouldn’t it be flown? It’s the latest rage! 39 of our once-United States are leading the way to dishonor the Constitution by trashing its Interstate Commerce clause. There are only 11 remaining United States with reciprocal and Constitutional interstate shipping laws. A new Confederacy is alive and growing! Their latest victory? Mauling of the wine industry. The 39 neo-Confederate States have enacted laws prohibiting and/or restricting direct interstate shipment of domestic fine wines—fine wines desired by their voting citizens—while catalog and internet sales of any other type of merchandise can be purchased and shipped across State lines without a single tax or tariff concern for citizens or businesses. Small wineries are the only businesses in the nation not allowed the same rights, privileges and protection of any other U.S. industry. When making a side-by-side comparison of the U.S. and Confederate Constitutions, there begs the question: Has the smaller wine industry slowly been captured by clandestine neo-Confederate spies posing as super-concerned political leaders who are in reality self-righteous neo-probes and social manipulators? This Confederate initiative, led by Florida’s House Rep. Scarborough, has bulldozed another grey-cap victory with House Bill HR 2031, which was passed by the House on August 3rd of this year. HR 2031 requires that Federal courts "enforce State laws relating to the interstate transportation of intoxicating liquor." Of all the nerve! The neo-Confederacy passes their anti-U.S. Constitutional laws but wants the U.S. Government to enforce them? This will inevitably pit State against State in an ugly domestic trade war—a Balkanization in the making. For example, in a case of Florida Vs California, two agricultural power-States, how could a Federal judge make a final ruling without risk of national reprisal? How can the judge rule one State over another without himself committing higher Constitutional violations? If appealed, in which State would the case be tried? In accordance with Miranda, if an attorney must be assigned, in which State is that attorney to be licensed? Would a change of venue to a third-party State become necessary? What are similar trade-laws in the third-party State relative to the case? Right here in California there are 13 elected officials who have been flimflammed and are now strong supporters of HR 2031—a law that damages California’s small wine industry’s ability to exist and compete like any other domestic business. (These California representatives are Pickett, Stump, Rahall, Dickey, Ehrlich, Etheridge, McIntyre, Sandlin, Meehan, Barcia, Turner, Gillmor, Miller.) Whose interests are they protecting? From where does their re-election money come? State government regulations in the neo-Confederate States empower their distributors and wholesalers with sole discretion as to which wines will be available for purchase by the citizenry in those States. Why are the wholesalers and distributors allowed to have dominion over the choices and rights of citizens? One clue could be the $1.7 million contributed in 1997-98 to federal candidates by the National Beer Wholesalers Assoc. and the Wine and Spirit Wholesalers of America while the Wine Institute contributed only $73,000 in that same year. Is the Wine Institute hiding in the bushes because much of its major funding comes from large wineries, who are themselves in bed with the large wholesalers? (Large wineries do not need their wine clubs to survive.) Speaking of bushes, does it not seem outrageous that the two Bush brothers, if they wanted to, could not legally send to each other a congratulatory bottle of fine wine following their respective gubernatorial victories in Texas and Florida? (Direct interstate shipping of wine is illegal in both states.) If the Civil War was truly a battle for State’s Rights vs. the Rights of the United States as granted by the U.S. Constitution, then this war is far from over. When individual States are allowed to impose trade restrictions, taxes, bounties, and protectionist penalties on commercial entities based in neighboring States, despite the right of free trade among States as defined by the U.S. Constitution, then there is small wonder why the Confederate flag receives so much attention… while old glory flies silently, with little thought given to its fading stars. Stay tuned… |
|