This week we will discuss FAKE right wing 'Republicans' PRETENDING to be protecting US, state, or local sovereignty by selling the idea the global corporations they are bringing to US states like MARYLAND are indeed American---or at least European or UK----all the while KNOWING they are global 1% Asian, Arabic foreign corporations. Now, REAL left social progressives do not mind having foreign products on our shelves to allow those global corporations to have market share. What we mind is ----having those foreign corporations being the totality of our local domestic economy.
US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES FOR ONLY THE GLOBAL 1% MEANS JUST THAT---NO US 99% WE THE PEOPLE NEED APPLY.
We shared a post yesterday over the protest surrounding our local microbreweries angry because RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN HOGAN installed a global foreign corporation branded as GUINNESS with all kinds of marketing making it seem IRISH. Maryland does indeed have lots of 99% Irish people-----but Hogan is installing a FAKE Irish corporation pretending it has roots to the original Irish Guinness.
'Indie brewers fight back in bitter row over beer brands' craft credentials
Trade body says drinkers deserve to know whether they are buying genuine craft beer or one made by a multinational'
This is why our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE must look beyond what US media and those global banking 5% freemason/Greek player pols say----to find from where these foreign corporations being brought to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES originate. The GUINNESS BREWERY opening in Maryland is a subsidiary of DIAGEO-----which is a global 1% ARABIC corporation.
Diageo
FMCG
United Arab Emirates - Dubai
http://www.diageo.com
This is Our Company
About
Diageo is the world's leading premium drinks business with an outstanding collection of beverage alcohol brands across spirits,wine and beer categories. These brands include: Smirnoff, Johnnie Walker, Captain Morgan, Baileys, J&B, José Cuervo, Tanqueray, Guinness, Crown Royal, Beaulieu Vineyard and Sterling Vineyards wines, and Bushmills Irish whiskey.
Diageo is a global company, trading in over 180 markets around the world. The company is listed on both the London Stock Exchange (DGE) and the New York Stock Exchange (DEO).
We employ over 22,000 talented people worldwide with offices in around 80 countries. We have manufacturing facilities across the globe including Great Britain, Ireland, United States, Canada, Spain, Italy, Africa, Latin America, Australia, India and the Caribbean.
We KNEW this because we read in global finance that UAE United Arabic Emirates had purchased this GUINNESS BRAND. HIDING AND LYING-----is the only talent of Clinton/Bush/Obama----and of course Hogan like O'Malley is simply MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES as anything but AMERICA.
Diageo Opens Guinness Brewery & Barrel House in Maryland
BALTIMORE — Guinness brewers, executives and guests from the local community gathered for a ceremonial ribbon-cutting at the new home of Guinness in America – the Open Gate Brewery & Barrel House in Maryland.
“This brewery has long been a dream for Guinness, and an incredible amount of hard work has gone into getting these doors open,” said Diageo Beer Company USA Chairman and Diageo Global Chief Sales Officer Tom Day. “I can’t wait to see people enjoying the fantastic beer our brewers have made in this historic and beautiful building. I’m proud that we have created something special and quintessentially Guinness here in Maryland.”
Located just 10 miles from downtown Baltimore and 30 miles northeast of Washington, D.C., the Open Gate Brewery & Barrel House is conveniently located and part of an exciting and growing brewing scene in Maryland. It will be the home of Guinness Blonde, along with new Guinness beers created for the U.S. market. The creation of a world-class brewery, barrel house and visitor center, and development of packaging and warehousing operations has generated more than 200 jobs and represents an investment by Diageo of approximately $90 million in the Maryland project.
The first part of the brewery’s name takes inspiration from the Guinness Open Gate Brewery in Dublin – where the company has experimented in beer for more than a century. The second part of the name, “Barrel House,” is a nod to the long history of Guinness brewers maturing beer in wood barrels, a tradition this new brewery intends to continue. In addition, the space was once home to a historic whiskey distillery, so the site already boasts a venerable heritage of barrel-aging.
“Our administration is proud of Maryland’s robust and growing brewing industry and we are excited to welcome a legendary brewer like Guinness to our great state,” said Maryland Governor Larry Hogan. “In addition to more than 200 new jobs, this new facility’s full-time brewing and hospitality operations will bring a new source of tourism to Baltimore County and to Maryland. We remain committed to supporting companies that invest in our communities and our citizens, and Guinness opening its doors today is yet another example that Maryland is open for business.”
Leveraging a pre-existing structure for the project, as opposed to starting from scratch with a green field development, was a priority for Guinness to maintain parent company Diageo’s commitment to environmental sustainability. Guinness has also implemented measures to reduce the overall electric consumption and water usage at the site, while utilizing recycled elements for the build, along with low volatile organic compound (VOC) materials and paints, to accent the building.
“A lot more than hops goes into building a brewery,” said Baltimore County Executive, Don Mohler. “We partnered with Diageo from permits to passing legislation, all to be sure these historic buildings would become a world class destination for Baltimore County and the region.”
The Open Gate Brewery & Barrel House is the first Guinness brewing operation on U.S. soil in more than 60 years and is home to two custom-built brewhouses: a 10-barrel brewhouse and a 100-hectoliter brewhouse, both of which are set up to brew and ferment different styles. The 10-barrel system is the small-batch experimental brewery, while the 100-hectoliter system will initially brew Guinness Blonde for national distribution.
Led by Brewmaster Peter Wiens and Head Brewer Hollie Stephenson, the Maryland brewing team has already begun producing beers for the on-site taproom. While the majority of beers will be available exclusively in the taproom, a few brews will make their way to the greater DC, Maryland and Virginia areas, with some even rolling out nationally.
Beginning tomorrow, visitors can tour the 10-barrel brewery and try the beers made on site. The initial line-up will include: “Guinness IPA,” a hit in the Test Taproom; and “Crosslands Pale Ale,” a beer made entirely with Maryland-grown malted barley and hops.
While many Guinness classic stouts, including Guinness Draught, Extra Stout, and Foreign Extra Stout, will continue to be brewed at St. James’s Gate in Dublin, guests can enjoy them responsibly alongside the new American innovation beers in the brewery’s taproom. The exact number of beers on tap will vary, but there will typically be more than 15 beers available at one time.
All beer sales and sampling will be limited to guests 21 years of age and over, but the destination will offer fun for people of all ages. The brewery’s restaurant, led by Executive Chef Sam Anderson, is slated to open later this summer, and the menu will take inspiration from popular local dishes and Guinness’ unmistakable Irish heritage. Leading up to the restaurant’s debut – and even after it opens – guests can order casual bar fare in the taproom, or enjoy some of Maryland’s finest food trucks, which will often be stationed on the brewery grounds. The Open Gate Brewery & Barrel House also includes a performance area for future concerts and local community events.
Starting opening weekend, Guinness partner Lyft will set up a permanent pickup lane at the brewery to facilitate convenient and responsible rides home as a part of Diageo’s commitment to responsible drinking and Lyft’s Ride Smart initiative.
Upon opening to the public, the brewery will offer free self-guided tours, and later this summer will also begin to feature guided tours with beer tastings for $10. Taproom entry and access to the restaurant and outdoor grounds will be free of charge. Once guided tours begin, tickets will be available for purchase on site, but Guinness recommends buying them ahead of time at www.GuinnessBreweryBaltimore.com. At the outset, Open Gate Brewery & Barrel House operating hours will be Monday-Friday, 3-9 p.m. ET, and Saturday-Sunday, 12-9 p.m. ET.
To keep up to date with the latest news from the Open Gate Brewery & Barrel House, make sure to follow @GuinnessBreweryUS on Facebook and Instagram. Whether enjoying a pint at the Open Gate Brewery & Barrel House in Maryland, at the Guinness Storehouse in Ireland or anywhere in between, please do so responsibly.
_______________________________________
What our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens are not seeing is this-------global banking is moving very QUICKLY from a US Wall Street ---since America is being sacked and looted and brought to colonial entity. Global banking through DUBAI---ARAB EMIRATES-----is where all global 1% EUROPEAN OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS do financial transactions. There will be no American corporation MOVING FORWARD.
So, the global 1% are buying those shares of ARABIA'S GUINNESS brand-----all that wealth having nothing to do with US----or our 99% WE THE PEOPLE----who are MOVING FORWARD to simply being non-entities with no sovereign rights and no ability to participate in global economy.
Don't yell for TRUMP-----he's heavily invested in foreign corporations not RIGHT WING 'REPUBLICAN' working to make America great.
Diageo sales growth curbed by forex
Published 2:47 AM ET Thu, 25 Jan 2018 Updated 3:21 AM ET Thu, 25 Jan 2018
Diageo, the world's largest spirits company, reported a 1.7 percent increase in half-year sales on Thursday, as growth was curbed by foreign exchange rates and issues including a later Chinese New Year and a ban on selling alcohol near Indian highways and stood by its full-year goals.
Diageo said operating profit rose 6.1 percent to 2.2 billion pounds ($3.14 billion) on net sales up 1.7 percent at 6.5 billion pounds.
Earnings per share before items were 67.8 pence.
The maker of Johnnie Walker whisky and Smirnoff vodka had previously warned that sales and profit growth for the current financial year would be driven by the second half, which will end in June.
"Our financial performance expectations for this year remain unchanged," Chief Executive Ivan Menezes said in a statement.
The company has promised "consistent mid-single digit top line growth and 175 basis points of organic operating margin improvement in the three years ending June 2019".
______________________________________________
Here we have LeBron James claiming to be KING OF WRAP-AROUND SCHOOLS-----of course LeBron is simply using his foundation for PROFITEERING----with the majority of investors being global investment firms and hedge funds. LeBron will be long gone as these NOT IN YOUR LIFE 'PUBLIC' schools are simply enfolded into global corporate campuses as corporate schools.
'It’s part of Akron Public Schools, with some big private money backing its launch'
As our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE watch MOVING FORWARD telling us these global neo-liberal RACE TO TOP COMMONER CORE schools are 'PUBLIC'------they have absolutely nothing PUBLIC involved.
As we stated yesterday, all those global banking 5% freemason/Greek players given patronage to create TEMPORARY Wrap-Around outsourced non-profits working since OBAMA era to have small businesses ----were simply used to 'deregulate' ----making way for global corporations to take what was US public K-12.
So, our Maryland local microbrewery businesses were simply being used to 'deregulate' our US alcohol industry to make way for global corporations to take the economy.
These global banking 5% freemason/Greek players thinking they will simply be bounced to the next DEREGULATION GAME----are at the END of the road.
Our US 99% of citizens can see why global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA are using DEVIL'S HORNS for I LOVE YOU to take US to being a Godless bunch of independent FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES in Western Hemisphere.
A new LeBron James-backed school is preparing to open in Ohio. Here’s what it will do.
Published: Saturday, July 28, 2018 @ 1:19 PM
By: Kaitlin Schroeder - Staff Writer
CLEVELAND, OH - MAY 05: LeBron James #23 of the Cleveland Cavaliers celebrates after hitting the game winning shot to beat the Toronto Raptors 105-103 in Game Three of the Eastern Conference Semifinals during the 2018 NBA Playoffs at Quicken Loans Arena on May 5, 2018 in Cleveland, Ohio. (Photo by Gregory Shamus/Getty Images)A new elementary school in Akron is about to open with the help of the LeBron James Family Foundation.
With the I Promise School’s first students set to start Monday, here’s what you need to know.
1. It’s part of Akron Public Schools, with some big private money backing its launch
The school was the idea of James, an Akron native and NBA All-Star, reports the Akron Beacon Journal. The school is getting the same public funding per pupil as the other schools in the district, but it is also backed by large donations from organizations including James’ foundation and others who are covering the extras not paid for by the school district.
2. The students will be children considered academically at risk.
There will be smaller class sizes, a curriculum with STEM and social-emotional learning priorities, and a resource center to support students, according to Akron Beacon Journal. The students starting Monday are 240 third- and fourth-graders. More grades will be added and by the 2022 to 2023 school year, there will be first through eight grade students at the school.
3. The proposal was first unveiled April 2017
James’ foundation already funded the I Promise Network, which at the time was supporting 1,100 students in grade schools in the Akron area. The idea for the school was first introduced last year as a way to take what works in the I Promise Network to build a curriculum and bring it under one roof.
_______________________________________________
'5 All-American Beers Owned by Foreign Companies | The Fiscal ...'
Looks like US no longer has an alcohol corporation in its sovereignty what so ever. Know what? Federal, state, and local alcohol manufacturing and sales laws have always laid heavily on alcohol and sovereignty. So, when MARYLAND GOV HOGAN pretends this new GUINNESS corporation is IRISH----he is dodging greater LEGAL ISSUES surrounding our US, state, and local alcohol laws.
Well, I guess that leaves our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE being pushed to third world poverty in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES to return to BOOTLEGGING.
Just what are those US sovereign alcohol manufacturing, trade, sales laws over 300 years?
Suntory's ----
'Suntory - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suntory
Suntory Holdings Limited is a Japanese brewing and distilling company group. Established in 1899, it is one of the oldest companies in the distribution of ...'
5 All-American Beers Owned by Foreign Companies | The Fiscal ...
www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/07/03/5-All-American-Beers-Owned-Foreign-Companies
Jul 3, 2016 ... 5 All-American Beers Owned by Foreign Companies .... When Anheuser-Busch sold to InBev -- based in Leuven, Belgium, and Sau Paolo, ...
Global banking 1% FAKE right wing 'Republicans' TRUMP/HOGAN say ------WE DON'T CARE about US, state, and local alcohol laws ----how un-Republican of TRUMP/HOGAN.
Who Owns Your Favorite Liquor Brands?
Even the spirits world is dominated by conglomerates.
by Jake Emen Jan 26, 2016, 12:00pm EST
Recently, there's been ample discussion of the massive mergers and acquisitions taking place in the beer industry, especially in relation to AB InBev and SABMiller. Of course, these types of megadeals are no stranger to the spirits industry, either. So who makes what, and who owns whom?
Here's a look at the major players in the world of booze conglomerates. While every brand and every company may not be listed below (and we're not even going to bother diving into realms that have little stateside bearing such as soju or Indian whisky), what follows is a who's who of top liquors and labels.
DIAGEO
All of that before even getting to Tanqueray, Crown Royal, Bulleit, plenty more Scotch, and additional interests ranging from Schnapps and mixed drinks, to wines and more liqueurs. With over 30 distilleries and growing, Diageo is the biggest whisky producer in the world. The company also owns 34 percent of Moët Hennessy (see below), adding interests in Cognac and Champagne to its bustling lineup.
PERNOD RICARD
One interesting note is that when the Seagram Company was split up and sold in 2000, the beverage division was divvied up between Pernod Ricard and Diageo. The aftermath, particularly as it relates to the whiskey being made at what is now known as the MGP distillery in Lawrenceburg, Indiana, helped fuel the fire and fuss behind the ongoing sourced whiskey controversy.
BEAM SUNTORY
The deal sent ripples throughout the spirits industry, with rumors swirling of future mergers and acquisitions in its wake. No further dominoes have fallen, but that could change in short order.
BACARDI LIMITED
While Pernod Ricard owns the Havana Club brand, Bacardi had long ago purchased the Havana Club trademark in the United States. Expect the legal wrangling to continue, particularly as the potential for Cuban rum sold in the United States nears
Brown-Forman
In the wake of Suntory's acquisition of Beam, reports circulated that Brown-Forman could be on either end of a deal, potentially being bought by the likes of Bacardi, or conversely, potentially buying the likes of Rémy Cointreau. Talk has quieted down as of late, and while the company is public, the Brown family controls the bulk of the common stock.
MOËT HENNESSY
Whisky production at both Ardbeg and Glenmorangie are overseen by Dr. Bill Lumsden, the Glenmorangie Company's Director of Distilling. As mentioned above, Diageo formed a partnership with Moët Hennessy and owns one third of its shares.
GRUPPO CAMPARI
THAI BEVERAGE
WILLIAM GRANT & SONS
RÉMY COINTREAU
THE EDRINGTON GROUP
MORE COMPANIES TO KNOW:
_________________________________________
Here is how our Maryland global banking 1% media outlets start that REFORM of alcohol laws rolling---they PRETEND its all about making alcohol more ACCESSIBLE-----you know, for our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE. No doubt Maryland is one of the last of US states to allow sales of alcohol in grocery stores------THAT deregulation is nothing new. It started back when our alcohol was manufactured by US companies and sold in US grocery stores. Today, no US grocery stores---no US alcohol manufacturers.
The push for 21ST CENTURY alcohol laws has nothing to do with selling alcohol in grocery stores.
Maryland deserves 21st century alcohol laws - Baltimore Sunwww.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-rr-beer-grocery-20170907-story.html Sep 7, 2017 ... Will Maryland finally allow beer and wine sales in grocery stores?
Below we see the REAL reason for 21st century reform of US, state, and local alcohol laws-------global banking 1% are killing all of our local sovereignty to regulate the 5Ws of how alcohol is handled in our communities---in our counties---in our states---in our nation.
'Additional notes: Maryland counties have wide authority to regulate alcohol sales within their borders. Consult this county-by-county list to see the breakdown'
Remember, this is what MOVING FORWARD RACE TO TOP is doing to our US public school system as well--killing local school districts----local administration oversight and accountability-----so too now our US alcohol control laws.
Boston College Law Review
Volume 41
Issue 3
Number 3
Article 5
5-1-2000
State Power to Regulate Alcohol Under the Twenty-First Amendment: The Constitutional Implications of the Twenty-First Amendment
Enforcement Act
John Foust
STATE POWER TO REGULATE ALCOHOL
UNDER THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT:
THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS
OF THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT
ENFORCEMENT ACT
Abstract:
Over forty states have direct shipment laws prohibiting, or severely limiting, an individual's ability to purchase wine from outside of the state and have it shipped home via a common carrier Congress recently proposed a bill entitled the Twenty first Amendment Enforcement Act (Enforcement Act") that would authorize State Attorneys General to bypass the
state courts and bring action in the federal courts to enforce direct shipment laws. This Note argues that direct shipment laws are unconstitutional, and that the proposed Enforcement Act cannot enable states to enforce these unconstitutional state laws.
Below we see what global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ---now TRUMP are trying hard to dismantle---one public policy at a time. Alcohol has 300 years of being heavily regulated to US sovereignty---with states having fought hard to have a sovereign control---and of course so too our local county/city alcohol laws. What global banking 1% are trying to do is eliminate all those sovereign laws surrounding alcohol---manufacturing, trade, sales---because the US is MOVING FORWARD to not being a sovereign nation---Maryland is MOVING FORWARD to not being a sovereign state---and Baltimore is MOVING FORWARD to not being a sovereign county/city.
This is what CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA have worked hard to eliminate----Trump/Hogan is simply MOVING FORWARD the REFORM of our 21st Amendment ---especially surrounding ALCOHOL LAWS. All those silly NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY constitutional amendments did not exist when US was a set of colonies.
Twenty-first Amendment - U.S. Constitution
Twenty-First Amendment - Repeal of the Eighteenth AmendmentAmendment Text | Annotations
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. 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.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. Effect of Repeal
21st Amendment Annotations
The operative effect of Sec. 1, repealing the Eighteenth Amendment, is considered in the commentary dealing with that Amendment.
Scope of Regulatory Power Conferred upon the States
Discrimination as Between Domestic and Imported Products.
--In a series of interpretive decisions rendered shortly after ratification of this Amendment, the Court established the proposition that States are competent to adopt legislation discriminating against imported intoxicating liquors in favor of those of domestic origin and that such discrimination offends neither the commerce clause of Article I nor the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, in State Board of Equalization v. Young's Market Co., 1 a California statute was upheld which exacted a $500 annual license fee for the privilege of importing beer from other States and a $750 fee for the privilege of manufacturing beer; and in Mahoney v. Triner Corp., 2 a Minnesota statute was sustained which prohibited a licensed manufacturer or wholesaler from importing any brand of intoxicating liquor containing more than 25 percent alcohol by volume and ready for sale without further processing, unless such brand was registered in the United States Patent Office. Also validated in Brewing Co. v. Liquor Comm'n 3 and Finch & Co. v. McKittrick 4 were retaliation laws enacted by Michigan and Missouri, respectively, by the terms of which sales in each of these States of beer manufactured in a State already discriminating against beer produced in Michigan or Missouri were rendered unlawful.
Conceding, in State Board of Equalization v. Young's Market Co., 5 that ''prior to the Twenty-first Amendment it would obviously have been unconstitutional to have imposed any fee for . . . the privilege of importation . . . even if the State had exacted an equal fee for the privilege of transporting domestic beer from its place of manufacture to the [seller's] place of business,'' the Court proclaimed that this Amendment ''abrogated the right to import free, so far as concerns intoxicating liquors.'' Inasmuch as the States were viewed as having acquired therefrom an unconditioned authority to prohibit totally the importation of intoxicating beverages, it logically followed that any discriminatory restriction falling short of total exclusion was equally valid, notwithstanding the absence of any connection between such restriction and public health, safety or morals. As to the contention that the unequal treatment of imported beer would contravene the equal protection clause, the Court succinctly observed that a ''classification recognized by the Twenty-first Amendment cannot be deemed forbidden by the Fourteenth.'' 6
In Seagram & Sons v. Hostetter 7 a case involving a state statute regulating the price of intoxicating liquors, the Court upheld the statute, asserting that the Twenty-first Amendment bestowed upon the States broad regulatory power over the liquor sales within their territories. 8 It was also noted that States are not totally bound by traditional commerce clause limitations when they restrict the importation of toxicants destined for use, distribution, or consumption within their borders. 9 In such a situation the Twenty- first Amendment demands wide latitude for regulation by the State. 10 The Court added that there was nothing in the Twenty-first Amendment or any other part of the Constitution that required state laws regulating the liquor business to be motivated exclusively by a desire to promote temperance. 11
Recent cases have undercut the expansive interpretation of state powers in the Young's Market and Triner Corp. cases. Twenty-first Amendment and Commerce Clause principles are to be harmonized where possible. The Court now phrases the question in terms of ''whether the interests implicated by a state regulation are so closely related to the powers reserved by the Twenty-first Amendment that the regulation may prevail, notwithstanding that its requirements directly conflict with express federal policies.'' 12 ''[T]he central power reserved by Sec. 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment [is] that of exercising 'control over whether to permit importation or sale of liquor and how to structure the liquor distribution system.''' 13 Because ''[t]he central purpose of the [Amendment] was not to empower States to favor local liquor industries by erecting barriers to competition,'' the ''central tenet'' of the Commerce Clause will control to invalidate ''mere economic protectionism,'' at least where the state cannot justify its tax or regulation as ''designed to promote temperance or to carry out any other purpose of the . . . Amendment.'' 14
Regulation of Transportation and ''Through'' Shipments.
--When passing upon the constitutionality of legislation regulating the carriage of liquor interstate, a majority of the Justices seemed disposed to by-pass the Twenty-first Amendment and to resolve the issue exclusively in terms of the commerce clause and state power. This trend toward devaluation of the Twenty-first Amendment was set in motion by Ziffrin, Inc. v. Reeves 15 wherein a Kentucky statute, forbidding the transportation of intoxicating liquors by carriers other than licensed common carriers, was enforced as to an Indiana corporation, engaged in delivering liquor obtained from Kentucky distillers to consignees in Illinois but licensed only as a contract carrier under the Federal Motor Carriers Act. After acknowledging that ''the Twenty-first Amendment sanctions the right of a State to legislate concerning intoxicating liquors brought from without, unfettered by the Commerce Clause,'' 16 the Court then proceeded to found its ruling largely upon decisions antedating the Amendment which sustained similar state regulations as a legitimate exercise of the police power not unduly burdening interstate commerce. In the light of the cases enumerated in the preceding paragraph, wherein the Twenty-first Amendment was construed as according a plenary power to the States, such extended emphasis on the police power and the commerce clause would seem to have been unnecessary. Thereafter, a total eclipse of the Twenty- first Amendment was recorded in Duckworth v. Arkansas 17 and Carter v. Virginia, 18 wherein, without even considering that Amendment, a majority of the Court upheld, as not contravening the commerce clause, statutes regulating the transport through the State of liquor cargoes originating and ending outside the regulating State's boundaries. 19
Regulation of Imports Destined for a Federal Area.
--Intoxicating beverages brought into a State for ultimate delivery at a National Park located therein but over which the United States retained exclusive jurisdiction has been construed as not constituting ''transportation . . . into [a] State for delivery and use therein'' within the meaning of Sec. 2 of the Amendment. The importation having had as its objective delivery and use in a federal area over which the State retained no jurisdiction, the increased powers which the State acquired from the Twenty-first Amendment were declared to be inapplicable. California therefore could not extend the importation license and other regulatory requirements of its Al coholic Beverage Control Act to a retail liquor dealer doing business in the Park. 20 On the other hand, a state may apply nondiscriminatory liquor regulations to sales at federal enclaves under concurrent federal and state jurisdiction, and may require that liquor sold at such federal enclaves be labelled as being restricted for use only within the enclave. 21
Foreign Imports, Exports; Taxation, Regulation.
--The Twenty- first Amendment did not repeal the export-import clause, Art. I, Sec. 10, cl. 2, nor obliterate the commerce clause, Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 3. Accordingly, a State cannot tax imported Scotch whiskey while it remains ''in unbroken packages in the hands of the original importer and prior to [his] resale or use'' thereof. 22 Likewise, New York is precluded from terminating the business of an airport dealer who, under sanction of federal customs laws, acquired ''tax-free liquors for export'' from out-of-state sources for resale exclusively to airline passengers, with delivery deferred until the latter arrive at foreign destinations. 23 Similarly, a state ''affirmation law'' prohibiting wholesalers from charging lower prices on out-of-state sales than those already approved for in-state sales is invalid as a direct regulation of interstate commerce. ''The Commerce Clause operates with full force whenever one State attempts to regulate the transportation and sale of alcoholic beverages destined for distribution and consumption in a foreign country . . . or another State.'' 24
Effect of Section 2 upon Other Constitutional Provisions.--
Nothwithstanding the 1936 assertion that ''[a] classification recognized by the Twenty-first Amendment cannot be deemed forbidden by the Fourteenth,'' 25 the Court has now in a series of cases acknowledged that Sec. 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment did not repeal provisions of the Constitution adopted before ratification of the Twenty-first, save for the severe cabining of commerce clause application to the liquor traffic, but it has formulated no consistent rationale for a determination of the effect of the later provision upon earlier ones. In Craig v. Boren, 26 the Court invalidated a state law that prescribed different minimum drinking ages for men and women as violating the equal protection clause. To the State's Twenty-first Amendment argument, the Court replied that the Amendment ''primarily created an exception to the normal operation of the Commerce Clause'' and that its ''relevance . . . to other constitutional provisions'' is doubtful. '''Neither the text nor the history of the Twenty-first Amendment suggests that it qualifies individual rights protected by the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment where the sale or use of liquor is concerned.''' 27 The square holding on this point is ''that the operation of the Twenty-first Amendment does not alter the application of the equal protection standards that would otherwise govern this case.'' 28 Other decisions reach the same result but without discussing the application of the Amendment. 29 Similarly, a state ''may not exercise its power under the Twenty-first Amendment in a way which impinges upon the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.'' 30
The Court departed from this line of reasoning in California v. LaRue. Supp.1 There, the Court sustained the facial constitutionality of regulations barring a lengthy list of actual or simulated sexual activities and motion picture portrayals of these activities in establishments licensed to sell liquor by the drink. In an action attacking the validity of the regulations as applied to ban nude dancing in bars, the Court considered at some length the material adduced at the public hearings which resulted in the rules demonstrating the anti-social consequences of the activities in the bars. It conceded that the regulations reached expression that would not be deemed legally obscene under prevailing standards and reached expressive conduct that would not be prohibitable under prevailing standards, 32 but the Court thought that the constitutional protection of conduct that partakes ''more of gross sexuality than of communication'' was outweighed by the State's interest in maintaining order and decency. Moreover, the Court continued, the second section of the Twenty-first Amendment gave an ''added presumption in favor of the validity'' of the regulations as applied to prohibit questioned activities in places serving liquor by the drink. 33
A much broader ruling was forthcoming when the Court considered the constitutionality of a state regulation banning topless dancing in bars. ''Pursuant to its power to regulate the sale of liquor within its boundaries, it has banned topless dancing in establishments granted a license to serve liquor. The State's power to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages entirely includes the lesser power to ban the sale of liquor on premises where topless dancing occurs.'' 34 This recurrence to the greater-includes-the-lesser-power argument, relatively rare in recent years, 35 would if it were broadly applied give the States in the area of regulation of alcoholic beverages a review-free discretion of unknown scope. In 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, Supp.2 the Court disavowed LaRue and Bellanca, and reaffirmed that, ''although the Twenty-first Amendment limits the effect of the dormant Commerce Clause on a state's regulatory power over the delivery or use of intoxicating beverages within its borders, 'the Amendment does not license the States to ignore their obligations under other provisions of the Constitution,' '' Supp.3 and therefore does not afford a basis for state legislation infringing freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment. There is no reason, the Court asserted, for distinguishing between freedom of expression and the other constitutional guarantees (e.g., those protected by the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses) held to be insulated from state impairment pursuant to powers conferred by the Twenty-first Amendment. The Court hastened to add by way of dictum that states retain adequate police powers to regulate ''grossly sexual exhibitions in premises licensed to serve alcoholic beverages.'' 'Entirely apart from the Twenty-first Amendment, the State has ample power to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages in inappropriate locations.'' Supp.4
Effect on Federal Regulation
The Twenty-first Amendment of itself did not, it was held, bar a prosecution under the Sherman Antitrust Act of producers, wholesalers, and retailers charged with conspiring to fix and maintain retail prices of alcoholic beverages in Colorado. 36 In a concur ring opinion, supported by Justice Roberts, Justice Frankfurter took the position that if the State of Colorado had in fact ''authorized the transactions here complained of, the Sherman Law could not override such exercise of state power. . . . [Since] the Sherman Law . . . can have no greater potency than the Commerce Clause itself, it must equally yield to state power drawn from the Twenty-first Amendment.'' 37
Following a review of the cases in this area, the Court has observed ''that there is no bright line between federal and state powers over liquor. The Twenty-first Amendment grants the States virtually complete control over whether to permit importation or sale of liquor and how to structure the liquor distribution system. Although States retain substantial discretion to establish other liquor regulations, those controls may be subject to the federal commerce power in appropriate situations. The competing state and federal interests can be reconciled only after careful scrutiny of those concerns in a 'concrete case.''' 38 Invalidating under the Sherman Act a state fair trade scheme imposing a resale price maintenance policy for wine, the Court balanced the federal interest in free enterprise expressed through the antitrust laws against the asserted state interests in promoting temperance and orderly marketing conditions. Since the state courts had found the policy under attack promoted neither interest signficantly, the Supreme Court experienced no difficulty in concluding that the federal interest prevailed. Whether more substantial state interests or means more suited to promoting the state interests would survive attack under federal legislation must await further litigation.
Congress may condition receipt of federal highway funds on a state's agreeing to raise the minimum drinking age to 21, the Twenty- first Amendment not constituting an ''independent constitutional bar'' to this sort of spending power exercise even though Congress may lack the power to achieve its purpose directly. 39
________________________________________
Now, as with our local microbreweries protesting global corporations killing competition and ergo their small businesses----so too, will this kill our local small wineries. Global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA---never intended for small business wineries to exist. They simply used these small businesses to DEREGULATE-----with only the goal of global wine corporations moving in to manufacture and distribute. What is all this commotion over the simple shipping of wines across state borders? No problem for global corporations----BIG problem for our local small business wineries.
The goal of MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES---is to have NO local economies -----FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES only have global corporate FOOTPRINTS which then create SUBSIDIARIES-----all owned by that global corporation.
Please STOP MOVING FORWARD all dismantlement of what will allow our rebuilding of LOCAL, DOMESTIC, REAL FREE MARKET ECONOMIES for all US 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens and our new to US 99% immigrant citizens.
All of these public policies are coming from FAR-RIGHT WING-----not REAL left social progressives who fight for and protect small businesses and local, domestic economies.
The Pour
Wines Are No Longer Free to Travel Across State LinesDaniel Posner, owner of Grapes the Wine Company, left, helps Nicholas Lindsay-Jones pick out some wine in Mr. Posner’s store in White Plains. About half of the company’s business was shipping to out-of-state clients, primarily in New Jersey and Connecticut, but that has come to an end.
CreditKarsten Moran for The New York TimesBy Eric Asimov
For a golden moment, motivated wine lovers could rely on high-speed internet as a sort of national wine shop. A consumer in Little Rock, Ark., for example, unable to find particular bottles locally, could order them from a shop in New York. It required only a willingness to pay shipping costs.
Those days are no more. In the last year or so, carriers like United Parcel Service and FedEx have told retailers that they will no longer accept out-of-state shipments of alcoholic beverages unless they are bound for one of 14 states (along with Washington, D.C.) that explicitly permit such interstate commerce.
New York is not one of those 14 states, as The New York Times’s wine panel learned to its chagrin in the last year.
All of the bottles we sample at our wine tastings are purchased retail. When Bernard Kirsch, our tasting coordinator, could not find the wines he wanted in New York, he ordered from elsewhere, doing regular business with retailers in California and New Jersey, among other places. I, too, like many wine lovers, occasionally bought wine from out-of-state shops for my personal consumption. But that has ended.
Strictly speaking, it was probably never entirely legal in New York or in many other states to have wine shipped in from out-of-state retailers. Yet, these laws requiring a license for interstate wine shipments seemed vague and were rarely enforced.
But now, states — urged on by wine and spirits wholesalers who oppose any sort of interstate alcohol commerce that bypasses them — have stepped up enforcement efforts. Retailers say that the carriers began sending out letters to them a year ago saying they would no longer handle their shipments.
For consumers who live in states stocked with fine-wine retailers, like New York, the restrictions are an inconvenience. For consumers in states with few retail options, they are disastrous. It’s hard enough outside major metropolitan areas to find wines from small producers. The crackdown makes it that much harder.
Before the internet, the bigger wine shops sometimes printed periodic catalogs for their customers, particularly around the holidays. If those catalogs found their way into hands in other states and enticed a few far-flung sales, it was no big deal one way or the other.
Broadband changed everything. No longer did retailers have to identify and attract potential customers. With a few clicks of the mouse, eager consumers could seek out wine shops all over the country, scour their inventories and order the bottles they wanted.
“That’s one of the happy miracles of the age,” said Jamie Wolff, an owner of Chambers Street Wines in New York.
Like other retailers I spoke with, Mr. Wolff was not willing to offer precise sales figures, but he said a significant amount of Chambers Street’s business had been from out of state.
“It seems a shame to tell consumers anywhere that they can’t freely purchase something they want,” he said.
Until 2005, many retailers quietly engaged in interstate business without much fuss. But that year, which roughly coincided with the widespread access to high-speed internet, the Supreme Court ruling in Granholm v. Heald effectively lifted many state bans on buying directly from out-of-state wineries.
Though the ruling applied to wineries, not to retailers, Granholm had a liberating effect on consumers who suddenly found it much easier to find the wines they wanted online. The decision also allows the direct shipment of wines purchased by tourists at wineries to all states.
The efforts to curtail interstate shipping, many retailers believe, are a result of heavy lobbying by wine and spirits wholesalers, supported by generous campaign contributions to state legislators and other elected officials. In New York State, for example, wholesalers have given $2.7 million to candidates for office, compared with $678,000 donated by retailers, according to the Nation Institute on Money in State Politics.
“Wholesalers have been looking at this issue for quite some time,” said Daniel Posner, owner of Grapes the Wine Company, a retailer in White Plains. “They went to state liquor authorities and said, ‘People aren’t following the laws.’ Now it’s all coming to a brutal end.”
US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES FOR ONLY THE GLOBAL 1% MEANS JUST THAT---NO US 99% WE THE PEOPLE NEED APPLY.
We shared a post yesterday over the protest surrounding our local microbreweries angry because RIGHT WING REPUBLICAN HOGAN installed a global foreign corporation branded as GUINNESS with all kinds of marketing making it seem IRISH. Maryland does indeed have lots of 99% Irish people-----but Hogan is installing a FAKE Irish corporation pretending it has roots to the original Irish Guinness.
'Indie brewers fight back in bitter row over beer brands' craft credentials
Trade body says drinkers deserve to know whether they are buying genuine craft beer or one made by a multinational'
This is why our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE must look beyond what US media and those global banking 5% freemason/Greek player pols say----to find from where these foreign corporations being brought to US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES originate. The GUINNESS BREWERY opening in Maryland is a subsidiary of DIAGEO-----which is a global 1% ARABIC corporation.
Diageo
FMCG
United Arab Emirates - Dubai
http://www.diageo.com
This is Our Company
About
Diageo is the world's leading premium drinks business with an outstanding collection of beverage alcohol brands across spirits,wine and beer categories. These brands include: Smirnoff, Johnnie Walker, Captain Morgan, Baileys, J&B, José Cuervo, Tanqueray, Guinness, Crown Royal, Beaulieu Vineyard and Sterling Vineyards wines, and Bushmills Irish whiskey.
Diageo is a global company, trading in over 180 markets around the world. The company is listed on both the London Stock Exchange (DGE) and the New York Stock Exchange (DEO).
We employ over 22,000 talented people worldwide with offices in around 80 countries. We have manufacturing facilities across the globe including Great Britain, Ireland, United States, Canada, Spain, Italy, Africa, Latin America, Australia, India and the Caribbean.
We KNEW this because we read in global finance that UAE United Arabic Emirates had purchased this GUINNESS BRAND. HIDING AND LYING-----is the only talent of Clinton/Bush/Obama----and of course Hogan like O'Malley is simply MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES as anything but AMERICA.
Diageo Opens Guinness Brewery & Barrel House in Maryland
- Press Release
- Aug. 3, 2018 at 3:00 PM
BALTIMORE — Guinness brewers, executives and guests from the local community gathered for a ceremonial ribbon-cutting at the new home of Guinness in America – the Open Gate Brewery & Barrel House in Maryland.
“This brewery has long been a dream for Guinness, and an incredible amount of hard work has gone into getting these doors open,” said Diageo Beer Company USA Chairman and Diageo Global Chief Sales Officer Tom Day. “I can’t wait to see people enjoying the fantastic beer our brewers have made in this historic and beautiful building. I’m proud that we have created something special and quintessentially Guinness here in Maryland.”
Located just 10 miles from downtown Baltimore and 30 miles northeast of Washington, D.C., the Open Gate Brewery & Barrel House is conveniently located and part of an exciting and growing brewing scene in Maryland. It will be the home of Guinness Blonde, along with new Guinness beers created for the U.S. market. The creation of a world-class brewery, barrel house and visitor center, and development of packaging and warehousing operations has generated more than 200 jobs and represents an investment by Diageo of approximately $90 million in the Maryland project.
The first part of the brewery’s name takes inspiration from the Guinness Open Gate Brewery in Dublin – where the company has experimented in beer for more than a century. The second part of the name, “Barrel House,” is a nod to the long history of Guinness brewers maturing beer in wood barrels, a tradition this new brewery intends to continue. In addition, the space was once home to a historic whiskey distillery, so the site already boasts a venerable heritage of barrel-aging.
“Our administration is proud of Maryland’s robust and growing brewing industry and we are excited to welcome a legendary brewer like Guinness to our great state,” said Maryland Governor Larry Hogan. “In addition to more than 200 new jobs, this new facility’s full-time brewing and hospitality operations will bring a new source of tourism to Baltimore County and to Maryland. We remain committed to supporting companies that invest in our communities and our citizens, and Guinness opening its doors today is yet another example that Maryland is open for business.”
Leveraging a pre-existing structure for the project, as opposed to starting from scratch with a green field development, was a priority for Guinness to maintain parent company Diageo’s commitment to environmental sustainability. Guinness has also implemented measures to reduce the overall electric consumption and water usage at the site, while utilizing recycled elements for the build, along with low volatile organic compound (VOC) materials and paints, to accent the building.
“A lot more than hops goes into building a brewery,” said Baltimore County Executive, Don Mohler. “We partnered with Diageo from permits to passing legislation, all to be sure these historic buildings would become a world class destination for Baltimore County and the region.”
The Open Gate Brewery & Barrel House is the first Guinness brewing operation on U.S. soil in more than 60 years and is home to two custom-built brewhouses: a 10-barrel brewhouse and a 100-hectoliter brewhouse, both of which are set up to brew and ferment different styles. The 10-barrel system is the small-batch experimental brewery, while the 100-hectoliter system will initially brew Guinness Blonde for national distribution.
Led by Brewmaster Peter Wiens and Head Brewer Hollie Stephenson, the Maryland brewing team has already begun producing beers for the on-site taproom. While the majority of beers will be available exclusively in the taproom, a few brews will make their way to the greater DC, Maryland and Virginia areas, with some even rolling out nationally.
Beginning tomorrow, visitors can tour the 10-barrel brewery and try the beers made on site. The initial line-up will include: “Guinness IPA,” a hit in the Test Taproom; and “Crosslands Pale Ale,” a beer made entirely with Maryland-grown malted barley and hops.
While many Guinness classic stouts, including Guinness Draught, Extra Stout, and Foreign Extra Stout, will continue to be brewed at St. James’s Gate in Dublin, guests can enjoy them responsibly alongside the new American innovation beers in the brewery’s taproom. The exact number of beers on tap will vary, but there will typically be more than 15 beers available at one time.
All beer sales and sampling will be limited to guests 21 years of age and over, but the destination will offer fun for people of all ages. The brewery’s restaurant, led by Executive Chef Sam Anderson, is slated to open later this summer, and the menu will take inspiration from popular local dishes and Guinness’ unmistakable Irish heritage. Leading up to the restaurant’s debut – and even after it opens – guests can order casual bar fare in the taproom, or enjoy some of Maryland’s finest food trucks, which will often be stationed on the brewery grounds. The Open Gate Brewery & Barrel House also includes a performance area for future concerts and local community events.
Starting opening weekend, Guinness partner Lyft will set up a permanent pickup lane at the brewery to facilitate convenient and responsible rides home as a part of Diageo’s commitment to responsible drinking and Lyft’s Ride Smart initiative.
Upon opening to the public, the brewery will offer free self-guided tours, and later this summer will also begin to feature guided tours with beer tastings for $10. Taproom entry and access to the restaurant and outdoor grounds will be free of charge. Once guided tours begin, tickets will be available for purchase on site, but Guinness recommends buying them ahead of time at www.GuinnessBreweryBaltimore.com. At the outset, Open Gate Brewery & Barrel House operating hours will be Monday-Friday, 3-9 p.m. ET, and Saturday-Sunday, 12-9 p.m. ET.
To keep up to date with the latest news from the Open Gate Brewery & Barrel House, make sure to follow @GuinnessBreweryUS on Facebook and Instagram. Whether enjoying a pint at the Open Gate Brewery & Barrel House in Maryland, at the Guinness Storehouse in Ireland or anywhere in between, please do so responsibly.
_______________________________________
What our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens are not seeing is this-------global banking is moving very QUICKLY from a US Wall Street ---since America is being sacked and looted and brought to colonial entity. Global banking through DUBAI---ARAB EMIRATES-----is where all global 1% EUROPEAN OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS do financial transactions. There will be no American corporation MOVING FORWARD.
So, the global 1% are buying those shares of ARABIA'S GUINNESS brand-----all that wealth having nothing to do with US----or our 99% WE THE PEOPLE----who are MOVING FORWARD to simply being non-entities with no sovereign rights and no ability to participate in global economy.
Don't yell for TRUMP-----he's heavily invested in foreign corporations not RIGHT WING 'REPUBLICAN' working to make America great.
Diageo sales growth curbed by forex
- Diageo has reported a 1.7 percent increase in half-year sales.
- Growth was curbed by foreign exchange rates and issues including a later Chinese New Year.
- The world's largest drinks spirits company said that operating profit rose 6.1 percent to 2.2 billion pounds ($3.14 billion) on net sales up 1.7 percent.
Published 2:47 AM ET Thu, 25 Jan 2018 Updated 3:21 AM ET Thu, 25 Jan 2018
Diageo, the world's largest spirits company, reported a 1.7 percent increase in half-year sales on Thursday, as growth was curbed by foreign exchange rates and issues including a later Chinese New Year and a ban on selling alcohol near Indian highways and stood by its full-year goals.
Diageo said operating profit rose 6.1 percent to 2.2 billion pounds ($3.14 billion) on net sales up 1.7 percent at 6.5 billion pounds.
Earnings per share before items were 67.8 pence.
The maker of Johnnie Walker whisky and Smirnoff vodka had previously warned that sales and profit growth for the current financial year would be driven by the second half, which will end in June.
"Our financial performance expectations for this year remain unchanged," Chief Executive Ivan Menezes said in a statement.
The company has promised "consistent mid-single digit top line growth and 175 basis points of organic operating margin improvement in the three years ending June 2019".
______________________________________________
Here we have LeBron James claiming to be KING OF WRAP-AROUND SCHOOLS-----of course LeBron is simply using his foundation for PROFITEERING----with the majority of investors being global investment firms and hedge funds. LeBron will be long gone as these NOT IN YOUR LIFE 'PUBLIC' schools are simply enfolded into global corporate campuses as corporate schools.
'It’s part of Akron Public Schools, with some big private money backing its launch'
As our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE watch MOVING FORWARD telling us these global neo-liberal RACE TO TOP COMMONER CORE schools are 'PUBLIC'------they have absolutely nothing PUBLIC involved.
As we stated yesterday, all those global banking 5% freemason/Greek players given patronage to create TEMPORARY Wrap-Around outsourced non-profits working since OBAMA era to have small businesses ----were simply used to 'deregulate' ----making way for global corporations to take what was US public K-12.
So, our Maryland local microbrewery businesses were simply being used to 'deregulate' our US alcohol industry to make way for global corporations to take the economy.
These global banking 5% freemason/Greek players thinking they will simply be bounced to the next DEREGULATION GAME----are at the END of the road.
Our US 99% of citizens can see why global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA are using DEVIL'S HORNS for I LOVE YOU to take US to being a Godless bunch of independent FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES in Western Hemisphere.
A new LeBron James-backed school is preparing to open in Ohio. Here’s what it will do.
Published: Saturday, July 28, 2018 @ 1:19 PM
By: Kaitlin Schroeder - Staff Writer
CLEVELAND, OH - MAY 05: LeBron James #23 of the Cleveland Cavaliers celebrates after hitting the game winning shot to beat the Toronto Raptors 105-103 in Game Three of the Eastern Conference Semifinals during the 2018 NBA Playoffs at Quicken Loans Arena on May 5, 2018 in Cleveland, Ohio. (Photo by Gregory Shamus/Getty Images)A new elementary school in Akron is about to open with the help of the LeBron James Family Foundation.
With the I Promise School’s first students set to start Monday, here’s what you need to know.
1. It’s part of Akron Public Schools, with some big private money backing its launch
The school was the idea of James, an Akron native and NBA All-Star, reports the Akron Beacon Journal. The school is getting the same public funding per pupil as the other schools in the district, but it is also backed by large donations from organizations including James’ foundation and others who are covering the extras not paid for by the school district.
2. The students will be children considered academically at risk.
There will be smaller class sizes, a curriculum with STEM and social-emotional learning priorities, and a resource center to support students, according to Akron Beacon Journal. The students starting Monday are 240 third- and fourth-graders. More grades will be added and by the 2022 to 2023 school year, there will be first through eight grade students at the school.
3. The proposal was first unveiled April 2017
James’ foundation already funded the I Promise Network, which at the time was supporting 1,100 students in grade schools in the Akron area. The idea for the school was first introduced last year as a way to take what works in the I Promise Network to build a curriculum and bring it under one roof.
_______________________________________________
'5 All-American Beers Owned by Foreign Companies | The Fiscal ...'
Looks like US no longer has an alcohol corporation in its sovereignty what so ever. Know what? Federal, state, and local alcohol manufacturing and sales laws have always laid heavily on alcohol and sovereignty. So, when MARYLAND GOV HOGAN pretends this new GUINNESS corporation is IRISH----he is dodging greater LEGAL ISSUES surrounding our US, state, and local alcohol laws.
Well, I guess that leaves our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE being pushed to third world poverty in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES to return to BOOTLEGGING.
Just what are those US sovereign alcohol manufacturing, trade, sales laws over 300 years?
Suntory's ----
'Suntory - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suntory
Suntory Holdings Limited is a Japanese brewing and distilling company group. Established in 1899, it is one of the oldest companies in the distribution of ...'
5 All-American Beers Owned by Foreign Companies | The Fiscal ...
www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/07/03/5-All-American-Beers-Owned-Foreign-Companies
Jul 3, 2016 ... 5 All-American Beers Owned by Foreign Companies .... When Anheuser-Busch sold to InBev -- based in Leuven, Belgium, and Sau Paolo, ...
Global banking 1% FAKE right wing 'Republicans' TRUMP/HOGAN say ------WE DON'T CARE about US, state, and local alcohol laws ----how un-Republican of TRUMP/HOGAN.
Who Owns Your Favorite Liquor Brands?
Even the spirits world is dominated by conglomerates.
by Jake Emen Jan 26, 2016, 12:00pm EST
Recently, there's been ample discussion of the massive mergers and acquisitions taking place in the beer industry, especially in relation to AB InBev and SABMiller. Of course, these types of megadeals are no stranger to the spirits industry, either. So who makes what, and who owns whom?
Here's a look at the major players in the world of booze conglomerates. While every brand and every company may not be listed below (and we're not even going to bother diving into realms that have little stateside bearing such as soju or Indian whisky), what follows is a who's who of top liquors and labels.
DIAGEO
- Value/Company Status: $71 billion market cap; $16.8 billion sales; No.245 on the Forbes Global 2000 list of world's biggest public companies
- Gin: Tanqueray, Gordon's, Booth's
- Rum: Captain Morgan, Ron Zacapa, Cacique
- Tequila: Don Julio
- Vodka: Smirnoff, Ketel One, Cîroc
- Whisk(e)y: Johnnie Walker, Crown Royal, Bulleit, Seagram's, George Dickel, Caol Ila, Talisker, Lagavulin, Oban, J&B, Bell's, Buchanan's, Cardhu
- Other: Baileys, Guinness
All of that before even getting to Tanqueray, Crown Royal, Bulleit, plenty more Scotch, and additional interests ranging from Schnapps and mixed drinks, to wines and more liqueurs. With over 30 distilleries and growing, Diageo is the biggest whisky producer in the world. The company also owns 34 percent of Moët Hennessy (see below), adding interests in Cognac and Champagne to its bustling lineup.
PERNOD RICARD
- Value/Company Status: $32.5 billion market cap; $10.6 billion sales; No.439 on Forbes Global 2000
- Brandy: Martell
- Gin: Beefeater, Seagram's, Plymouth
- Rum: Havana Club, Malibu
- Tequila: Avion, Olmeca Altos
- Vodka: Absolut
- Whisk(e)y: Chivas Regal, Jameson, The Glenlivet, Ballantine's, Wiser's
- Other: Kahlúa, Ricard
One interesting note is that when the Seagram Company was split up and sold in 2000, the beverage division was divvied up between Pernod Ricard and Diageo. The aftermath, particularly as it relates to the whiskey being made at what is now known as the MGP distillery in Lawrenceburg, Indiana, helped fuel the fire and fuss behind the ongoing sourced whiskey controversy.
BEAM SUNTORY
- Value/Company Status: $10.7 billion sales
- Brandy: Courvoisier, Terry Centenario
- Gin: Larios, Gilbey's
- Rum: Cruzan
- Tequila: Sauza, Hornitos, Tres Generaciones
- Vodka: Pinnacle, Effen, Vox
- Whisk(e)y: Jim Beam, Yamazaki, Maker's Mark, Canadian Club, Knob Creek, Teacher's, Kakubin, Laphroaig, Bowmore, Auchentoshan, the Ardmore, Hakushu, Hibiki, Kilbeggan, Alberta Premium, Tyrconnell
- Other: Skinnygirl, DeKuyper, Midori
The deal sent ripples throughout the spirits industry, with rumors swirling of future mergers and acquisitions in its wake. No further dominoes have fallen, but that could change in short order.
BACARDI LIMITED
- Value/Company Status: $4.6 billion estimated sales; Largest privately held spirits company
- Brandy: Baron Otard, D'USSÉ
- Gin: Bombay
- Rum: Bacardi
- Tequila: Cazadores
- Vodka: Grey Goose, Eristoff
- Whisk(e)y: Dewar's, William Lawson's, Aberfeldy, Aultmore, Royal Brackla, Craigellachie, Angel's Envy
- Other: Martini, St-Germain, Bénédictine
While Pernod Ricard owns the Havana Club brand, Bacardi had long ago purchased the Havana Club trademark in the United States. Expect the legal wrangling to continue, particularly as the potential for Cuban rum sold in the United States nears
Brown-Forman
- Value/Company Status: $19.4 billion market cap; $3 billion sales; No.1,267 on Forbes Global 2000
- Tequila: Herradura, El Jimador
- Vodka: Finlandia
- Whisk(e)y: Jack Daniel's, Woodford Reserve, Old Forester, Canadian Mist, Early Times
- Other: Chambord
In the wake of Suntory's acquisition of Beam, reports circulated that Brown-Forman could be on either end of a deal, potentially being bought by the likes of Bacardi, or conversely, potentially buying the likes of Rémy Cointreau. Talk has quieted down as of late, and while the company is public, the Brown family controls the bulk of the common stock.
MOËT HENNESSY
- Value/Company Status: The beverage division of LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE (LVMH); $4.3 billion sales (13 percent of LVMH's $33.3 billion revenue in 2014, per LVMH)
- Brandy: Hennessy
- Rum: 10 Cane
- Vodka: Belvedere
- Whisk(e)y: Glenmorangie, Ardbeg
- Other: Grand Marnier, Dom Pérignon, Moët & Chandon, Krug, Veuve Clicquot
Whisky production at both Ardbeg and Glenmorangie are overseen by Dr. Bill Lumsden, the Glenmorangie Company's Director of Distilling. As mentioned above, Diageo formed a partnership with Moët Hennessy and owns one third of its shares.
GRUPPO CAMPARI
- Value/Company Status: $4.5 billion market cap; $1.5 billion sales
- Rum: Appleton Estate
- Tequila: Cabo Wabo
- Vodka: Skyy
- Whisk(e)y: Wild Turkey, Russell's Reserve, Glen Grant, Old Smuggler
- Other: Campari, Aperol, Cinzano, Cynar, Frangelico, Averna, Irish Mist
THAI BEVERAGE
- Value/Company Status: $14.6 billion market cap; $5 billion sales; No.1,250 Forbes Global 2000
- Brandy: Meridian
- Gin: Caorunn, Coldstream
- Rum: Mekhong, SangSom, Phraya
- Vodka: Kulov
- Whisk(e)y: Old Pulteney, Balblair, anCnoc, Speyburn, Knockdhu
- Other: Chinese & Thai spirits
WILLIAM GRANT & SONS
- Value/Company Status: $1.2 billion sales; Independent, family-owned company
- Gin: Hendrick's
- Rum: Sailor Jerry
- Tequila: Milagro
- Vodka: Reyka
- Whisk(e)y: Glenfiddich, Grant's, The Balvenie, Tullamore DEW, Monkey Shoulder
- Other: Drambuie
RÉMY COINTREAU
- Value/Company Status: $3.1 billion market cap; $900 million in sales
- Brandy: Rémy Martin
- Gin: The Botanist
- Rum: Mount Gay
- Whisk(e)y: Bruichladdich
- Other: Cointreau
THE EDRINGTON GROUP
- Value/Company Status: $650 million estimated sales; Privately held company
- Rum: Brugal
- Vodka: Snow Leopard
- Whisk(e)y: The Macallan, The Famous Grouse, Cutty Sark, Highland Park
MORE COMPANIES TO KNOW:
- Anchor Distilling: Beyond the Old Potrero whiskeys and other spirits that Anchor Distillery produces, the company imports a wide range of spirits to the U.S. The list includes selections such as Tempus Fugit and Luxardo liqueurs, BarSol pisco, Kavalan and Nikka whiskies, and several Scotch brands.
- Asahi Group: Asahi is a massive company, ranking No.698 on the Forbes Global 2000. However, it's most prominently involved in the beer industry, as Asahi Breweries, along with soft drinks and food products. Asahi is the top selling beer in Japan, and the company also just made a nearly $3.5 billion offer to buy Peroni and Grolsch from SABMiller. Yet, as owners of Japanese whisky company Nikka, the smaller rival to Suntory, they deserve mention in a spirits discussion as well. Interestingly, Asahi's rival on the Japanese beer front, Kirin Holdings, owns Four Roses Bourbon.
- Constellation Brands: A mammoth wine company, Constellation also owns SVEDKA Vodka, and Black Velvet Canadian whisky.
- Marie Brizard Wine & Spirits: Formerly known as Belvédère, Marie Brizard owns William Peel, which is one of the largest blended Scotch whiskies, Sobieski vodka, and now the Marie Brizard lineup of liqueurs.
- Mast-Jägermeister: Jägermeister.
_________________________________________
Here is how our Maryland global banking 1% media outlets start that REFORM of alcohol laws rolling---they PRETEND its all about making alcohol more ACCESSIBLE-----you know, for our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE. No doubt Maryland is one of the last of US states to allow sales of alcohol in grocery stores------THAT deregulation is nothing new. It started back when our alcohol was manufactured by US companies and sold in US grocery stores. Today, no US grocery stores---no US alcohol manufacturers.
The push for 21ST CENTURY alcohol laws has nothing to do with selling alcohol in grocery stores.
Maryland deserves 21st century alcohol laws - Baltimore Sunwww.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/readersrespond/bs-ed-rr-beer-grocery-20170907-story.html Sep 7, 2017 ... Will Maryland finally allow beer and wine sales in grocery stores?
Below we see the REAL reason for 21st century reform of US, state, and local alcohol laws-------global banking 1% are killing all of our local sovereignty to regulate the 5Ws of how alcohol is handled in our communities---in our counties---in our states---in our nation.
'Additional notes: Maryland counties have wide authority to regulate alcohol sales within their borders. Consult this county-by-county list to see the breakdown'
Remember, this is what MOVING FORWARD RACE TO TOP is doing to our US public school system as well--killing local school districts----local administration oversight and accountability-----so too now our US alcohol control laws.
Boston College Law Review
Volume 41
Issue 3
Number 3
Article 5
5-1-2000
State Power to Regulate Alcohol Under the Twenty-First Amendment: The Constitutional Implications of the Twenty-First Amendment
Enforcement Act
John Foust
STATE POWER TO REGULATE ALCOHOL
UNDER THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT:
THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS
OF THE TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT
ENFORCEMENT ACT
Abstract:
Over forty states have direct shipment laws prohibiting, or severely limiting, an individual's ability to purchase wine from outside of the state and have it shipped home via a common carrier Congress recently proposed a bill entitled the Twenty first Amendment Enforcement Act (Enforcement Act") that would authorize State Attorneys General to bypass the
state courts and bring action in the federal courts to enforce direct shipment laws. This Note argues that direct shipment laws are unconstitutional, and that the proposed Enforcement Act cannot enable states to enforce these unconstitutional state laws.
Below we see what global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ---now TRUMP are trying hard to dismantle---one public policy at a time. Alcohol has 300 years of being heavily regulated to US sovereignty---with states having fought hard to have a sovereign control---and of course so too our local county/city alcohol laws. What global banking 1% are trying to do is eliminate all those sovereign laws surrounding alcohol---manufacturing, trade, sales---because the US is MOVING FORWARD to not being a sovereign nation---Maryland is MOVING FORWARD to not being a sovereign state---and Baltimore is MOVING FORWARD to not being a sovereign county/city.
This is what CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA have worked hard to eliminate----Trump/Hogan is simply MOVING FORWARD the REFORM of our 21st Amendment ---especially surrounding ALCOHOL LAWS. All those silly NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY constitutional amendments did not exist when US was a set of colonies.
Twenty-first Amendment - U.S. Constitution
Twenty-First Amendment - Repeal of the Eighteenth AmendmentAmendment Text | Annotations
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. 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.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. Effect of Repeal
21st Amendment Annotations
The operative effect of Sec. 1, repealing the Eighteenth Amendment, is considered in the commentary dealing with that Amendment.
Scope of Regulatory Power Conferred upon the States
Discrimination as Between Domestic and Imported Products.
--In a series of interpretive decisions rendered shortly after ratification of this Amendment, the Court established the proposition that States are competent to adopt legislation discriminating against imported intoxicating liquors in favor of those of domestic origin and that such discrimination offends neither the commerce clause of Article I nor the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, in State Board of Equalization v. Young's Market Co., 1 a California statute was upheld which exacted a $500 annual license fee for the privilege of importing beer from other States and a $750 fee for the privilege of manufacturing beer; and in Mahoney v. Triner Corp., 2 a Minnesota statute was sustained which prohibited a licensed manufacturer or wholesaler from importing any brand of intoxicating liquor containing more than 25 percent alcohol by volume and ready for sale without further processing, unless such brand was registered in the United States Patent Office. Also validated in Brewing Co. v. Liquor Comm'n 3 and Finch & Co. v. McKittrick 4 were retaliation laws enacted by Michigan and Missouri, respectively, by the terms of which sales in each of these States of beer manufactured in a State already discriminating against beer produced in Michigan or Missouri were rendered unlawful.
Conceding, in State Board of Equalization v. Young's Market Co., 5 that ''prior to the Twenty-first Amendment it would obviously have been unconstitutional to have imposed any fee for . . . the privilege of importation . . . even if the State had exacted an equal fee for the privilege of transporting domestic beer from its place of manufacture to the [seller's] place of business,'' the Court proclaimed that this Amendment ''abrogated the right to import free, so far as concerns intoxicating liquors.'' Inasmuch as the States were viewed as having acquired therefrom an unconditioned authority to prohibit totally the importation of intoxicating beverages, it logically followed that any discriminatory restriction falling short of total exclusion was equally valid, notwithstanding the absence of any connection between such restriction and public health, safety or morals. As to the contention that the unequal treatment of imported beer would contravene the equal protection clause, the Court succinctly observed that a ''classification recognized by the Twenty-first Amendment cannot be deemed forbidden by the Fourteenth.'' 6
In Seagram & Sons v. Hostetter 7 a case involving a state statute regulating the price of intoxicating liquors, the Court upheld the statute, asserting that the Twenty-first Amendment bestowed upon the States broad regulatory power over the liquor sales within their territories. 8 It was also noted that States are not totally bound by traditional commerce clause limitations when they restrict the importation of toxicants destined for use, distribution, or consumption within their borders. 9 In such a situation the Twenty- first Amendment demands wide latitude for regulation by the State. 10 The Court added that there was nothing in the Twenty-first Amendment or any other part of the Constitution that required state laws regulating the liquor business to be motivated exclusively by a desire to promote temperance. 11
Recent cases have undercut the expansive interpretation of state powers in the Young's Market and Triner Corp. cases. Twenty-first Amendment and Commerce Clause principles are to be harmonized where possible. The Court now phrases the question in terms of ''whether the interests implicated by a state regulation are so closely related to the powers reserved by the Twenty-first Amendment that the regulation may prevail, notwithstanding that its requirements directly conflict with express federal policies.'' 12 ''[T]he central power reserved by Sec. 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment [is] that of exercising 'control over whether to permit importation or sale of liquor and how to structure the liquor distribution system.''' 13 Because ''[t]he central purpose of the [Amendment] was not to empower States to favor local liquor industries by erecting barriers to competition,'' the ''central tenet'' of the Commerce Clause will control to invalidate ''mere economic protectionism,'' at least where the state cannot justify its tax or regulation as ''designed to promote temperance or to carry out any other purpose of the . . . Amendment.'' 14
Regulation of Transportation and ''Through'' Shipments.
--When passing upon the constitutionality of legislation regulating the carriage of liquor interstate, a majority of the Justices seemed disposed to by-pass the Twenty-first Amendment and to resolve the issue exclusively in terms of the commerce clause and state power. This trend toward devaluation of the Twenty-first Amendment was set in motion by Ziffrin, Inc. v. Reeves 15 wherein a Kentucky statute, forbidding the transportation of intoxicating liquors by carriers other than licensed common carriers, was enforced as to an Indiana corporation, engaged in delivering liquor obtained from Kentucky distillers to consignees in Illinois but licensed only as a contract carrier under the Federal Motor Carriers Act. After acknowledging that ''the Twenty-first Amendment sanctions the right of a State to legislate concerning intoxicating liquors brought from without, unfettered by the Commerce Clause,'' 16 the Court then proceeded to found its ruling largely upon decisions antedating the Amendment which sustained similar state regulations as a legitimate exercise of the police power not unduly burdening interstate commerce. In the light of the cases enumerated in the preceding paragraph, wherein the Twenty-first Amendment was construed as according a plenary power to the States, such extended emphasis on the police power and the commerce clause would seem to have been unnecessary. Thereafter, a total eclipse of the Twenty- first Amendment was recorded in Duckworth v. Arkansas 17 and Carter v. Virginia, 18 wherein, without even considering that Amendment, a majority of the Court upheld, as not contravening the commerce clause, statutes regulating the transport through the State of liquor cargoes originating and ending outside the regulating State's boundaries. 19
Regulation of Imports Destined for a Federal Area.
--Intoxicating beverages brought into a State for ultimate delivery at a National Park located therein but over which the United States retained exclusive jurisdiction has been construed as not constituting ''transportation . . . into [a] State for delivery and use therein'' within the meaning of Sec. 2 of the Amendment. The importation having had as its objective delivery and use in a federal area over which the State retained no jurisdiction, the increased powers which the State acquired from the Twenty-first Amendment were declared to be inapplicable. California therefore could not extend the importation license and other regulatory requirements of its Al coholic Beverage Control Act to a retail liquor dealer doing business in the Park. 20 On the other hand, a state may apply nondiscriminatory liquor regulations to sales at federal enclaves under concurrent federal and state jurisdiction, and may require that liquor sold at such federal enclaves be labelled as being restricted for use only within the enclave. 21
Foreign Imports, Exports; Taxation, Regulation.
--The Twenty- first Amendment did not repeal the export-import clause, Art. I, Sec. 10, cl. 2, nor obliterate the commerce clause, Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 3. Accordingly, a State cannot tax imported Scotch whiskey while it remains ''in unbroken packages in the hands of the original importer and prior to [his] resale or use'' thereof. 22 Likewise, New York is precluded from terminating the business of an airport dealer who, under sanction of federal customs laws, acquired ''tax-free liquors for export'' from out-of-state sources for resale exclusively to airline passengers, with delivery deferred until the latter arrive at foreign destinations. 23 Similarly, a state ''affirmation law'' prohibiting wholesalers from charging lower prices on out-of-state sales than those already approved for in-state sales is invalid as a direct regulation of interstate commerce. ''The Commerce Clause operates with full force whenever one State attempts to regulate the transportation and sale of alcoholic beverages destined for distribution and consumption in a foreign country . . . or another State.'' 24
Effect of Section 2 upon Other Constitutional Provisions.--
Nothwithstanding the 1936 assertion that ''[a] classification recognized by the Twenty-first Amendment cannot be deemed forbidden by the Fourteenth,'' 25 the Court has now in a series of cases acknowledged that Sec. 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment did not repeal provisions of the Constitution adopted before ratification of the Twenty-first, save for the severe cabining of commerce clause application to the liquor traffic, but it has formulated no consistent rationale for a determination of the effect of the later provision upon earlier ones. In Craig v. Boren, 26 the Court invalidated a state law that prescribed different minimum drinking ages for men and women as violating the equal protection clause. To the State's Twenty-first Amendment argument, the Court replied that the Amendment ''primarily created an exception to the normal operation of the Commerce Clause'' and that its ''relevance . . . to other constitutional provisions'' is doubtful. '''Neither the text nor the history of the Twenty-first Amendment suggests that it qualifies individual rights protected by the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment where the sale or use of liquor is concerned.''' 27 The square holding on this point is ''that the operation of the Twenty-first Amendment does not alter the application of the equal protection standards that would otherwise govern this case.'' 28 Other decisions reach the same result but without discussing the application of the Amendment. 29 Similarly, a state ''may not exercise its power under the Twenty-first Amendment in a way which impinges upon the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.'' 30
The Court departed from this line of reasoning in California v. LaRue. Supp.1 There, the Court sustained the facial constitutionality of regulations barring a lengthy list of actual or simulated sexual activities and motion picture portrayals of these activities in establishments licensed to sell liquor by the drink. In an action attacking the validity of the regulations as applied to ban nude dancing in bars, the Court considered at some length the material adduced at the public hearings which resulted in the rules demonstrating the anti-social consequences of the activities in the bars. It conceded that the regulations reached expression that would not be deemed legally obscene under prevailing standards and reached expressive conduct that would not be prohibitable under prevailing standards, 32 but the Court thought that the constitutional protection of conduct that partakes ''more of gross sexuality than of communication'' was outweighed by the State's interest in maintaining order and decency. Moreover, the Court continued, the second section of the Twenty-first Amendment gave an ''added presumption in favor of the validity'' of the regulations as applied to prohibit questioned activities in places serving liquor by the drink. 33
A much broader ruling was forthcoming when the Court considered the constitutionality of a state regulation banning topless dancing in bars. ''Pursuant to its power to regulate the sale of liquor within its boundaries, it has banned topless dancing in establishments granted a license to serve liquor. The State's power to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages entirely includes the lesser power to ban the sale of liquor on premises where topless dancing occurs.'' 34 This recurrence to the greater-includes-the-lesser-power argument, relatively rare in recent years, 35 would if it were broadly applied give the States in the area of regulation of alcoholic beverages a review-free discretion of unknown scope. In 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, Supp.2 the Court disavowed LaRue and Bellanca, and reaffirmed that, ''although the Twenty-first Amendment limits the effect of the dormant Commerce Clause on a state's regulatory power over the delivery or use of intoxicating beverages within its borders, 'the Amendment does not license the States to ignore their obligations under other provisions of the Constitution,' '' Supp.3 and therefore does not afford a basis for state legislation infringing freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment. There is no reason, the Court asserted, for distinguishing between freedom of expression and the other constitutional guarantees (e.g., those protected by the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses) held to be insulated from state impairment pursuant to powers conferred by the Twenty-first Amendment. The Court hastened to add by way of dictum that states retain adequate police powers to regulate ''grossly sexual exhibitions in premises licensed to serve alcoholic beverages.'' 'Entirely apart from the Twenty-first Amendment, the State has ample power to prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages in inappropriate locations.'' Supp.4
Effect on Federal Regulation
The Twenty-first Amendment of itself did not, it was held, bar a prosecution under the Sherman Antitrust Act of producers, wholesalers, and retailers charged with conspiring to fix and maintain retail prices of alcoholic beverages in Colorado. 36 In a concur ring opinion, supported by Justice Roberts, Justice Frankfurter took the position that if the State of Colorado had in fact ''authorized the transactions here complained of, the Sherman Law could not override such exercise of state power. . . . [Since] the Sherman Law . . . can have no greater potency than the Commerce Clause itself, it must equally yield to state power drawn from the Twenty-first Amendment.'' 37
Following a review of the cases in this area, the Court has observed ''that there is no bright line between federal and state powers over liquor. The Twenty-first Amendment grants the States virtually complete control over whether to permit importation or sale of liquor and how to structure the liquor distribution system. Although States retain substantial discretion to establish other liquor regulations, those controls may be subject to the federal commerce power in appropriate situations. The competing state and federal interests can be reconciled only after careful scrutiny of those concerns in a 'concrete case.''' 38 Invalidating under the Sherman Act a state fair trade scheme imposing a resale price maintenance policy for wine, the Court balanced the federal interest in free enterprise expressed through the antitrust laws against the asserted state interests in promoting temperance and orderly marketing conditions. Since the state courts had found the policy under attack promoted neither interest signficantly, the Supreme Court experienced no difficulty in concluding that the federal interest prevailed. Whether more substantial state interests or means more suited to promoting the state interests would survive attack under federal legislation must await further litigation.
Congress may condition receipt of federal highway funds on a state's agreeing to raise the minimum drinking age to 21, the Twenty- first Amendment not constituting an ''independent constitutional bar'' to this sort of spending power exercise even though Congress may lack the power to achieve its purpose directly. 39
________________________________________
Now, as with our local microbreweries protesting global corporations killing competition and ergo their small businesses----so too, will this kill our local small wineries. Global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA---never intended for small business wineries to exist. They simply used these small businesses to DEREGULATE-----with only the goal of global wine corporations moving in to manufacture and distribute. What is all this commotion over the simple shipping of wines across state borders? No problem for global corporations----BIG problem for our local small business wineries.
The goal of MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES---is to have NO local economies -----FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES only have global corporate FOOTPRINTS which then create SUBSIDIARIES-----all owned by that global corporation.
Please STOP MOVING FORWARD all dismantlement of what will allow our rebuilding of LOCAL, DOMESTIC, REAL FREE MARKET ECONOMIES for all US 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens and our new to US 99% immigrant citizens.
All of these public policies are coming from FAR-RIGHT WING-----not REAL left social progressives who fight for and protect small businesses and local, domestic economies.
The Pour
Wines Are No Longer Free to Travel Across State LinesDaniel Posner, owner of Grapes the Wine Company, left, helps Nicholas Lindsay-Jones pick out some wine in Mr. Posner’s store in White Plains. About half of the company’s business was shipping to out-of-state clients, primarily in New Jersey and Connecticut, but that has come to an end.
CreditKarsten Moran for The New York TimesBy Eric Asimov
- Oct. 23, 2017
For a golden moment, motivated wine lovers could rely on high-speed internet as a sort of national wine shop. A consumer in Little Rock, Ark., for example, unable to find particular bottles locally, could order them from a shop in New York. It required only a willingness to pay shipping costs.
Those days are no more. In the last year or so, carriers like United Parcel Service and FedEx have told retailers that they will no longer accept out-of-state shipments of alcoholic beverages unless they are bound for one of 14 states (along with Washington, D.C.) that explicitly permit such interstate commerce.
New York is not one of those 14 states, as The New York Times’s wine panel learned to its chagrin in the last year.
All of the bottles we sample at our wine tastings are purchased retail. When Bernard Kirsch, our tasting coordinator, could not find the wines he wanted in New York, he ordered from elsewhere, doing regular business with retailers in California and New Jersey, among other places. I, too, like many wine lovers, occasionally bought wine from out-of-state shops for my personal consumption. But that has ended.
Strictly speaking, it was probably never entirely legal in New York or in many other states to have wine shipped in from out-of-state retailers. Yet, these laws requiring a license for interstate wine shipments seemed vague and were rarely enforced.
But now, states — urged on by wine and spirits wholesalers who oppose any sort of interstate alcohol commerce that bypasses them — have stepped up enforcement efforts. Retailers say that the carriers began sending out letters to them a year ago saying they would no longer handle their shipments.
For consumers who live in states stocked with fine-wine retailers, like New York, the restrictions are an inconvenience. For consumers in states with few retail options, they are disastrous. It’s hard enough outside major metropolitan areas to find wines from small producers. The crackdown makes it that much harder.
Before the internet, the bigger wine shops sometimes printed periodic catalogs for their customers, particularly around the holidays. If those catalogs found their way into hands in other states and enticed a few far-flung sales, it was no big deal one way or the other.
Broadband changed everything. No longer did retailers have to identify and attract potential customers. With a few clicks of the mouse, eager consumers could seek out wine shops all over the country, scour their inventories and order the bottles they wanted.
“That’s one of the happy miracles of the age,” said Jamie Wolff, an owner of Chambers Street Wines in New York.
Like other retailers I spoke with, Mr. Wolff was not willing to offer precise sales figures, but he said a significant amount of Chambers Street’s business had been from out of state.
“It seems a shame to tell consumers anywhere that they can’t freely purchase something they want,” he said.
Until 2005, many retailers quietly engaged in interstate business without much fuss. But that year, which roughly coincided with the widespread access to high-speed internet, the Supreme Court ruling in Granholm v. Heald effectively lifted many state bans on buying directly from out-of-state wineries.
Though the ruling applied to wineries, not to retailers, Granholm had a liberating effect on consumers who suddenly found it much easier to find the wines they wanted online. The decision also allows the direct shipment of wines purchased by tourists at wineries to all states.
The efforts to curtail interstate shipping, many retailers believe, are a result of heavy lobbying by wine and spirits wholesalers, supported by generous campaign contributions to state legislators and other elected officials. In New York State, for example, wholesalers have given $2.7 million to candidates for office, compared with $678,000 donated by retailers, according to the Nation Institute on Money in State Politics.
“Wholesalers have been looking at this issue for quite some time,” said Daniel Posner, owner of Grapes the Wine Company, a retailer in White Plains. “They went to state liquor authorities and said, ‘People aren’t following the laws.’ Now it’s all coming to a brutal end.”
RSS Feed
