FARK.com: (5659468) House Democrats jettison their last vestiges of farker support, as they move to pass a bill limiting commerce in alcohol

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		House Democrats jettison their last vestiges of farker support, as they move to pass a bill limiting commerce in alcohol (reason.com)		158
		More: Stupid, Pabst Blue Ribbon, Commerce Clause, Joe Six-pack, alcohol abuses, winning strategy, John Conyers, Jesse Jackson, commerces

• • •

7509 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Sep 2010 at 2:36 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/5659468

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

158 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

Theaetetus		2010-09-30 11:13:01 AM

Not that I necessarily agree with the bill, but...

A bill that could wind up severly restricting interstate booze trade-thus raising prices, limiting selection, and generally making the world a dryer place, all while giving the Commerce Clause the heave-ho when it comes to trade in beer, wine, and liquor-managed to win a hearing today from the ready-to-get-outta-Dodge House Judiciary Committee.

The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate interstate trade. In what way is regulating interstate trade "giving the Commerce Clause the heave-ho"?
As near as I can tell following the links, they're claiming that because the bill allows states to regulate interstate trade, that it usurps Congress' power under the dormant commerce clause.

One problem though... It ain't dormant here. Congress is explicitly allowing the states to do this. Under Western & Southern Life Ins., congress' approval trumps any implied federal preemption.

Theaetetus		2010-09-30 11:14:19 AM

In fact, I should further qualify, having read more of the bill - I disagree with the bill.
But it's not unconstitutional.

Snarfangel		2010-09-30 11:18:42 AM

Theaetetus: In fact, I should further qualify, having read more of the bill - I disagree with the bill.
But it's not unconstitutional.

So technically speaking, the bill is lawful evil.

IdBeCrazyIf		2010-09-30 11:27:20 AM

Theaetetus: In fact, I should further qualify, having read more of the bill - I disagree with the bill.
But it's not unconstitutional.

Seconded

Sybarite		2010-09-30 11:50:33 AM

What's remarkable is how cheaply congressmen can be bought

Really?

Gulper Eel		2010-09-30 12:00:11 PM

Sybarite: Really?

Conyers does represent Detroit. He could buy five or six houses with his corporate beer contributions.

slayer199		2010-09-30 12:32:45 PM

The questions of the day:

Why is this law necessary?
What is it fixing?

Answers:
No.
Absolutely nothing.

antidisestablishmentarianism		2010-09-30 12:38:22 PM

Bad booze bill, I think major beer players were starting to feel pressure from microbreweries cutting into their profits and this helps it a bit.

HulkHands		2010-09-30 12:42:14 PM

You should probably watch Beer Wars (new window).

"Big" Alcohol is one of the largest lobbies in Washington, which is how Budweiser et al. can continue to make sure beer can only be sold at breweries or to distributors. Budweiser and Miller "own" most of these distributors either through sponsorship or money, which is why even the most selective package store still has dozens of cases of Bud at all times - because you have to order them to get deliveries. You want some nice bombers? You'd better order a few hundred Buds.

Although if you do watch Beer Wars, don't feel bad for the woman trying to sell her beer Moonshot to stores and other companies. It's a light lager with caffeine in it, and is awful.

benlonghair		2010-09-30 01:04:06 PM

Remember back in the day when the government went all trust-buster and actually pushed for competition?

patrick767		2010-09-30 01:08:54 PM

TFA:
is the cheesily-acronymed Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness (CARE) Act, which would make it easier for state alcohol wholesalers to protect their monopolies.

And there you have it.

HulkHands
Although if you do watch Beer Wars, don't feel bad for the woman trying to sell her beer Moonshot to stores and other companies. It's a light lager with caffeine in it, and is awful.

This. I guess they were trying to show how hard it is to break in to the beer market, but those segments didn't work for me at all. Her product sucked. Sure, most of the macrobrewery products suck too, but if they want to put out another shiat beer that they dump some caffeine into, they'll do it themselves. The main growth area for start-ups is in the exploding craft brew market. Her product has no appeal to those buyers.

And the name? Moonshot wasn't too terrible, but then she renamed it Moonshot 69. Really, lady? You thought what your product was missing was the best known numeric slang for a sexual position? Is this a beer or a chat room login name?

rcain		2010-09-30 01:21:48 PM

This would never have happened under Teddy's watch.

On the bright side, it's just a hearing, not a vote.
It'll probably be sent to some committee to die.

Theaetetus		2010-09-30 01:25:54 PM

slayer199: The questions of the day:

Why is this law necessary?
What is it fixing?

Answers:
No.
Absolutely nothing.

Why are you asking these questions?
Because you're probably one of them there small-government Ron Paul "the federal government shouldn't be passing laws unless they're important," right? Instead, these things should be up to the states, yes?

Have you read my earlier post? Do you know why I'm asking this?
This bill ensures that it's up to the states. The people who are claiming this bill is unconstitutional are making the claim that it gives the states too many rights.

HulkHands		2010-09-30 01:38:16 PM

patrick767: And the name? Moonshot wasn't too terrible, but then she renamed it Moonshot 69. Really, lady? You thought what your product was missing was the best known numeric slang for a sexual position? Is this a beer or a chat room login name?

I like when she tried to sell it to Sam Adams. Because when you think of Sam Adams, you think of light lagers with caffeine.

tallguywithglasseson		2010-09-30 01:40:51 PM

slayer199: The questions of the day:

Why is this law necessary?

Answers:
No.

Heh.

slayer199		2010-09-30 01:49:10 PM

Theaetetus: Why are you asking these questions?
Because you're probably one of them there small-government Ron Paul "the federal government shouldn't be passing laws unless they're important," right? Instead, these things should be up to the states, yes?

Have you read my earlier post? Do you know why I'm asking this?
This bill ensures that it's up to the states. The people who are claiming this bill is unconstitutional are making the claim that it gives the states too many rights.

Yes, and I'm sure the donations that big liquor and beer industries donated to the bill's sponsors had NOTHING to do with it.

Theaetetus		2010-09-30 01:51:12 PM

slayer199: Theaetetus: Why are you asking these questions?
Because you're probably one of them there small-government Ron Paul "the federal government shouldn't be passing laws unless they're important," right? Instead, these things should be up to the states, yes?

Have you read my earlier post? Do you know why I'm asking this?
This bill ensures that it's up to the states. The people who are claiming this bill is unconstitutional are making the claim that it gives the states too many rights.

Yes, and I'm sure the donations that big liquor and beer industries donated to the bill's sponsors had NOTHING to do with it.

And? In your profile, you claim to be a libertarian in favor of economic freedom and small federal government. This bill gives powers back to the states, and was influenced by economic powers in industry. And you're biatching about it? What kinda crappy libertarian are you?

/answer: one who wants to import beer and wine

slayer199		2010-09-30 02:09:10 PM

Theaetetus: And? In your profile, you claim to be a libertarian in favor of economic freedom and small federal government. This bill gives powers back to the states, and was influenced by economic powers in industry. And you're biatching about it? What kinda crappy libertarian are you?

/answer: one who wants to import beer and wine

This is one of those rare cases where the Fed should be regulating interstate trade to encourage competition, NOT limit it. Allowing the states to protect their own wholesalers is detrimental to the free market which is contrary to the purpose of the Commerce Clause.

hillbillypharmacist		2010-09-30 02:24:54 PM

slayer199: Allowing the states to protect their own wholesalers is detrimental to the free market which is contrary to the purpose of the Commerce Clause.

That's assuming that the purpose of the Commerce Clause is to foster a free market. In actuality, the purpose of the Commerce Clause is whatever the legislators want it to be.

Not that I agree with the legislation or anything.

MDGeist		2010-09-30 02:39:42 PM

When they fully legalize marijuana then I'll care about what they do with alcohol. Till then they could ban it out right and I wouldn't care at all.

marleymaniac		2010-09-30 02:40:05 PM

Anyone read the hover over caption of the Schlitz picture. Farking hilarious!

scarmig		2010-09-30 02:40:53 PM

Dear Congress,

Die in an alcohol fire.

uncletogie		2010-09-30 02:43:05 PM

MDGeist: When they fully legalize marijuana then I'll care about what they do with alcohol. Till then they could ban it out right and I wouldn't care at all.

I have to ask... What would suddenly make you care about booze if pot became legal?

SeraphicSorcerer		2010-09-30 02:43:33 PM

(Note: This is not to suggest that we should try to eliminate corporate donations to politicians. It won't work and it would be unconstitutional. Just keep in mind where these guys are coming from.)

FTFA

As soon as I read this I couldn't tell if the article was Satire.
I love people that twist the constitution to meet their agenda.

Either way this bill won't be passing, Senate is deadlocked. I am actually more worried about the new "Anti-Piracy" Bill. If there's one issue I can't stand with democrats it's their constant insistence that we keep regulating piracy, because everyone knows when you make a copy of anything you're a filthy pirate. Which is exactly why corporate donations needs to get farked in the arse.

Chimperror2		2010-09-30 02:44:13 PM

What!!?! Democrats caving to their monopolistic corporate overlords for campaign cash? Say it isn't so.

/Sadly, it's par for the course. Check the freezer for complete totals.

God Is My Co-Pirate		2010-09-30 02:44:28 PM

Gulper Eel: Sybarite: Really?

Conyers does represent Detroit. He could buy five or six houses with his corporate beer contributions.

Well yeah, but I could buy five or six houses in Detroit for less than my annual alcohol budget.

themirth		2010-09-30 02:44:42 PM

Theaetetus: And? In your profile, you claim to be a libertarian in favor of economic freedom and small federal government. This bill gives powers back to the states, and was influenced by economic powers in industry. And you're biatching about it? What kinda crappy libertarian are you?

/answer: one who wants to import beer and wine

Your assuming one must want more state power in addition to personal freedom. One can be in favor of both a strong federal government and strong personal freedoms. Just because I don't want to pay certain taxes to the fed doesn't mean I want the fed to empower my HOA to levy said taxes.

PCFX		2010-09-30 02:44:56 PM

HulkHands: You should probably watch Beer Wars (new window).

"Big" Alcohol is one of the largest lobbies in Washington, which is how Budweiser et al. can continue to make sure beer can only be sold at breweries or to distributors. Budweiser and Miller "own" most of these distributors either through sponsorship or money, which is why even the most selective package store still has dozens of cases of Bud at all times - because you have to order them to get deliveries. You want some nice bombers? You'd better order a few hundred Buds.

Although if you do watch Beer Wars, don't feel bad for the woman trying to sell her beer Moonshot to stores and other companies. It's a light lager with caffeine in it, and is awful.

I haven't drunk a single Miller Coors or Anheuser-Busch product since watching that movie. Lot's of tasty Dogfish Head, though...

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe		2010-09-30 02:45:21 PM

Well they do have their priorities.

Mock26		2010-09-30 02:45:40 PM

Fine. If you want to pass this law then add on a rider that will make it mandatory for local wholesalers to special order AT NO EXTRA COST any alcoholic beverage that they do not normally sell on a regular basis.

MDGeist		2010-09-30 02:46:54 PM

"I have to ask... What would suddenly make you care about booze if pot became legal?"

We'd finally be playing a fair game. As it is now having one legal and the other not is just plain hypocritical when you compare the effects. So I can't support alcohol since it's seems to get a free pass.

merrymortician		2010-09-30 02:47:37 PM

slayer199: The questions of the day:

Why is this law necessary?
What is it fixing?

Answers:
No.
Absolutely nothing.

say it again

BitwiseShift		2010-09-30 02:48:29 PM

Somehow the Whiskey Rebellion will be given a whole new meaning the opposite of it's orginal when this gets out and gets a corporate sponsor.

//Tea party my arse

A Dark Evil Omen		2010-09-30 02:49:25 PM

Sponsor: Rep. William Delahunt, D-MA

Co-sponsors:
Rep. John Adler [D, NJ-3]
Rep. Rodney Alexander [R, LA-5]
Rep. Robert Andrews [D, NJ-1]
Rep. Michele Bachmann [R, MN-6]
Rep. Spencer Bachus [R, AL-6]
Rep. John Barrow [D, GA-12]
Rep. Shelley Berkley [D, NV-1]
Rep. Timothy Bishop [D, NY-1]
Rep. John Boccieri [D, OH-16]
Rep. Mary Bono Mack [R, CA-45]
Rep. Dan Boren [D, OK-2]
Rep. Allen Boyd [D, FL-2]
Rep. Robert Brady [D, PA-1]
Rep. Bruce Braley [D, IA-1]
Rep. Bobby Bright [D, AL-2]
Rep. Paul Broun [R, GA-10]
Rep. Henry Brown [R, SC-1]
Rep. Vern Buchanan [R, FL-13]
Rep. Anh Cao [R, LA-2]
Rep. Shelley Capito [R, WV-2]
Rep. Michael Capuano [D, MA-8]
Rep. Christopher Carney [D, PA-10]
Rep. André Carson [D, IN-7]
Rep. Bill Cassidy [R, LA-6]
Rep. Kathy Castor [D, FL-11]
Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R, UT-3]
Rep. Travis Childers [D, MS-1]
Rep. Howard Coble [R, NC-6]
Rep. Tom Cole [R, OK-4]
Rep. Gerald Connolly [D, VA-11]
Rep. Joe Courtney [D, CT-2]
Rep. Henry Cuellar [D, TX-28]
Rep. Lincoln Davis [D, TN-4]
Rep. Danny Davis [D, IL-7]
Rep. Ted Deutch [D, FL-19]
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart [R, FL-25]
Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart [R, FL-21]
Rep. John Dingell [D, MI-15]
Rep. Joe Donnelly [D, IN-2]
Rep. Steve Driehaus [D, OH-1]
Rep. Thomas Edwards [D, TX-17]
Rep. Brad Ellsworth [D, IN-8]
Rep. Mary Fallin [R, OK-5]
Rep. Chaka Fattah [D, PA-2]
Rep. Bob Filner [D, CA-51]
Rep. Bill Foster [D, IL-14]
Rep. John Gingrey [R, GA-11]
Rep. Charles Gonzalez [D, TX-20]
Rep. Raymond Green [D, TX-29]
Rep. Deborah Halvorson [D, IL-11]
Rep. Phil Hare [D, IL-17]
Rep. Gregg Harper [R, MS-3]
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D, FL-23]
Rep. Martin Heinrich [D, NM-1]
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin [D, SD-0]
Rep. Rubén Hinojosa [D, TX-15]
Rep. Paul Hodes [D, NH-2]
Rep. Peter Hoekstra [R, MI-2]
Rep. Tim Holden [D, PA-17]
Rep. Rush Holt [D, NJ-12]
Rep. Jesse Jackson [D, IL-2]
Rep. Lynn Jenkins [R, KS-2]
Rep. Timothy Johnson [R, IL-15]
Rep. Eddie Johnson [D, TX-30]
Rep. Samuel Johnson [R, TX-3]
Rep. Walter Jones [R, NC-3]
Rep. Jim Jordan [R, OH-4]
Rep. Dale Kildee [D, MI-5]
Rep. Ronald Kind [D, WI-3]
Rep. Peter King [R, NY-3]
Rep. Larry Kissell [D, NC-8]
Rep. Ron Klein [D, FL-22]
Rep. Suzanne Kosmas [D, FL-24]
Rep. Frank Kratovil [D, MD-1]
Rep. Robert Latta [R, OH-5]
Rep. Daniel Lipinski [D, IL-3]
Rep. Frank LoBiondo [R, NJ-2]
Rep. David Loebsack [D, IA-2]
Rep. Frank Lucas [R, OK-3]
Rep. Ben Luján [D, NM-3]
Rep. Cynthia Lummis [R, WY-0]
Rep. Connie Mack [R, FL-14]
Rep. Jim Matheson [D, UT-2]
Rep. Betty McCollum [D, MN-4]
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R, MI-11]
Rep. Patrick McHenry [R, NC-10]
Rep. Michael McMahon [D, NY-13]
Rep. John Mica [R, FL-7]
Rep. Michael Michaud [D, ME-2]
Rep. Gary Miller [R, CA-42]
Rep. Candice Miller [R, MI-10]
Rep. Walter Minnick [D, ID-1]
Rep. Harry Mitchell [D, AZ-5]
Rep. Alan Mollohan [D, WV-1]
Rep. Patrick Murphy [D, PA-8]
Rep. Tim Murphy [R, PA-18]
Rep. Randy Neugebauer [R, TX-19]
Rep. Glenn Nye [D, VA-2]
Rep. James Oberstar [D, MN-8]
Rep. Pete Olson [R, TX-22]
Rep. Solomon Ortiz [D, TX-27]
Rep. Frank Pallone [D, NJ-6]
Rep. William Pascrell [D, NJ-8]
Rep. Edward Pastor [D, AZ-4]
Rep. Donald Payne [D, NJ-10]
Rep. Gary Peters [D, MI-9]
Rep. Collin Peterson [D, MN-7]
Rep. Ted Poe [R, TX-2]
Rep. Earl Pomeroy [D, ND-0]
Rep. Bill Posey [R, FL-15]
Rep. Tom Price [R, GA-6]
Rep. Adam Putnam [R, FL-12]
Rep. Mike Quigley [D, IL-5]
Rep. Nick Rahall [D, WV-3]
Rep. Dennis Rehberg [R, MT-0]
Rep. Silvestre Reyes [D, TX-16]
Rep. Laura Richardson [D, CA-37]
Rep. Ciro Rodriguez [D, TX-23]
Rep. Thomas Rooney [R, FL-16]
Rep. Peter Roskam [R, IL-6]
Rep. Steven Rothman [D, NJ-9]
Rep. Bobby Rush [D, IL-1]
Rep. Timothy Ryan [D, OH-17]
Rep. Steve Scalise [R, LA-1]
Rep. Mark Schauer [D, MI-7]
Rep. Aaron Schock [R, IL-18]
Rep. David Scott [D, GA-13]
Rep. Peter Sessions [R, TX-32]
Rep. Heath Shuler [D, NC-11]
Rep. William Shuster [R, PA-9]
Rep. Michael Simpson [R, ID-2]
Rep. Adrian Smith [R, NE-3]
Rep. Christopher Smith [R, NJ-4]
Rep. Lamar Smith [R, TX-21]
Rep. Zachary Space [D, OH-18]
Rep. Clifford Stearns [R, FL-6]
Rep. John Sullivan [R, OK-1]
Rep. Betty Sutton [D, OH-13]
Rep. Gene Taylor [D, MS-4]
Rep. Harry Teague [D, NM-2]
Rep. Glenn Thompson [R, PA-5]
Rep. Bennie Thompson [D, MS-2]
Rep. William Thornberry [R, TX-13]
Rep. John Tierney [D, MA-6]
Rep. Edolphus Towns [D, NY-10]
Rep. Peter Visclosky [D, IN-1]
Rep. Timothy Walz [D, MN-1]
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D, FL-20]
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R, GA-3]
Rep. Charles Wilson [D, OH-6]
Rep. Addison Wilson [R, SC-2]

Looks like a bipartisan clusterfark to me.

Shut up, all of you people listed, you cock!

SeraphicSorcerer		2010-09-30 02:50:10 PM

MDGeist: "I have to ask... What would suddenly make you care about booze if pot became legal?"

We'd finally be playing a fair game. As it is now having one legal and the other not is just plain hypocritical when you compare the effects. So I can't support alcohol since it's seems to get a free pass.

I agree with you on this one. If there's one thing I always loved about politics it's the fact that for the last 12 years or so every politician is like "I didn't inhale, or I inhaled but didn't like it, etc. Which basically is admitting to felony. However do they ever go to jail? fark no. It's both parties to. It's disgusting. They should just legalize it so they can say, I inhaled it and man did the food industry thank me after!

Lost Thought 00		2010-09-30 02:50:22 PM

Meh, simply bringing the rest of the country in line with PA-style booze control. Suffering enjoys company

MorphOSX		2010-09-30 02:50:37 PM

/obvious
//got nothin

Headso		2010-09-30 02:52:50 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Looks like a bipartisan clusterfark to me.

Weird, that the non-partisan reason would not include that information or quotes from republicans who support this bill.

Shaggy_C		2010-09-30 02:53:22 PM

Liberals love to talk about how alcohol is worse for society than their precious marijuana. At least they're being consistent. As soon as you saw the word 'progressive' start to make a comeback, you knew we were in for trouble from the nanny state.

cwolf20		2010-09-30 02:53:42 PM

Weren't Republicans responsible for doing this the first time around?

Leeds		2010-09-30 02:53:46 PM

Anyone have the "Libs libs libs libs" straight jacket photo?

A Dark Evil Omen		2010-09-30 02:55:02 PM

Headso: A Dark Evil Omen: Looks like a bipartisan clusterfark to me.

Weird, that the non-partisan reason would not include that information or quotes from republicans who support this bill.

I'm sure it was just an oversight.

Hueg_Redd		2010-09-30 02:56:01 PM

Shaggy_C: Liberals love to talk about how alcohol is worse for society than their precious marijuana. At least they're being consistent. As soon as you saw the word 'progressive' start to make a comeback, you knew we were in for trouble from the nanny state.

Shaggy you silly bastard...

Headso		2010-09-30 02:56:42 PM

Oldiron_79		2010-09-30 02:57:01 PM

In before Bender rejecting the commie Robot greeting card.

GoldSpider		2010-09-30 02:57:21 PM

hillbillypharmacist: In actuality, the purpose of the Commerce Clause is whatever the legislators want it to be.

Yeah I'm sure that's what the framers of the Constitution had in mind, considering the focus of the rest of the document was on specifically defining and restricting the government's powers.

OnlyM3		2010-09-30 02:59:13 PM

Religious fanatics of the democrat party strike again.

Blind_Io		2010-09-30 02:59:40 PM

So when we are in the midst of a deep recession the thing to do is restrict trade?

Has Congress caught the Deeeerp?

/rhetorical.

kleppe		2010-09-30 03:02:18 PM

marleymaniac: Anyone read the hover over caption of the Schlitz picture. Farking hilarious!

Awesome.

hillbillypharmacist		2010-09-30 03:02:41 PM

GoldSpider: Yeah I'm sure that's what the framers of the Constitution had in mind, considering the focus of the rest of the document was on specifically defining and restricting the government's powers.

Yeah, and this law is giving more power to the states vis a vis alcohol.

The words of the document merely say that the Congress has the power to regulate commerce. It is utterly agnostic on why or in what way it is to be regulated. That's the simple fact of the text. It was meant to be expansive and general.

Displayed 50 of 158 comments