Fountain Hills Times - Why We Should "CARE' : Alcohol and the Constitution

Op-Ed

By Representative David Schweikert

Alcohol and the Constitution

There have recently been a number of stories and reports that have grossly mischaracterized the Community Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness or "CARE Act" and my reasons for supporting this Constitutional bill. I would like to take this opportunity to dispel some inaccurate myths that have been circulating, and share some information about what the CARE Act actually does. Most importantly, this legislation will protect jobs and small businesses in states like Arizona.

It is clear that this legislation holds firm to the Constitution, specifically the 10th and the 21st Amendments.

A bit of history. In 1933, the 21st Amendment to the Constitution ended prohibition, and since that time, states have had the responsibility to establish laws pertaining to the labeling, advertising, taxation and distribution of alcohol. States oversee their respective sale, distribution, and content of alcohol. While the Commerce Clause of 1789 handed Congress the power to regulate commerce between the states, the 10th Amendment established that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This is directly reflected in the CARE Act and would do nothing to change these rights. It preserves the current law and ensures states keep power to regulate alcohol in a way that best meets the needs of their citizens. The CARE Act does not give states more or new power over advertising, labeling, content, or other such laws.

The CARE Act will not prevent direct-to-consumer sales of alcohol nor will it allow states to discriminate against out-of-state wineries. Since the institution of the 21st Amendment, states have had the option to allow or prevent direct shipments to consumers. Rather than ending direct-to-consumer shipping, the CARE Act would protect the ability of consumers to buy alcohol directly from producers by clarifying that states, and not the federal government, have the authority to regulate direct-to-consumer sales.

As for direct shipping of wine, if your home state allows you to have wine shipped from a winery (Arizona is one of 40 states that permit this), the CARE Act will not change what we already know to be the commerce of our community. According to Rebecca Spicer of the National Beer Wholesalers Association "The CARE Act will actually reaffirm the state's ability to enact laws that reflect the will of the people -- including if that will is to allow direct shipping of wine."

Focusing on jobs and the numbers behind them, we have seen an explosion of new, small businesses in the alcohol industry, which has generated thousands of employment opportunities in Arizona. This growth means more choices and variety for the consumer. We have 1,700 independent breweries across the country -- up dramatically from just a few dozen breweries in the 1980s. Today, there are more than 13,000 labels of beer and 50,000 labels of wine available to consumers from coast to coast.

This positive growth in business, as well as consumer choice, has been a direct result of an effective system of state-based regulation that the CARE Act seeks to protect. This system allows communities and local officials to decide how, where and when alcohol is sold.

Though there are some alcohol suppliers and retailers who would like to sell alcohol with less accountability and local oversight, our state-based system has successfully managed to balance marketplace competition with public safety.

These are just a few of the many reasons why 40 state attorneys generals, more than 50 bipartisan members of Congress, and nearly 80 percent of Americans support the concepts embodied in the CARE Act.

The CARE Act isn't ground-breaking legislation. The concept of states setting boundaries for the good of its people isn't a new concept. My decision to support the CARE Act came from my belief that this bill is consistent with the principles established by the Constitution. I firmly believe that states, and not an overly aggressive federal government or un-elected bureaucrats, are best suited to make local decisions regarding alcohol within their borders.

Source