酿造紧张:印第安纳州周日啤酒携带法的合宪性

Danielle M. Teagarden
{"title":"酿造紧张:印第安纳州周日啤酒携带法的合宪性","authors":"Danielle M. Teagarden","doi":"10.18060/18354","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Our United States Constitution contains both the Commerce Clause and the Twenty-first Amendment, however after decades of jurisprudence, the interplay between the two is still unclear. While providing background on brewery history in the United States and the emergence of the three-tier distribution system following the passage of the Twenty-first Amendment, this Article explores the boundaries of each constitutional provision and examines the legitimacy of the prevailing regulatory framework for alcohol sales. Using Indiana's beer laws as a lens, the Article builds upon jurisprudence set forth in 2005's landmark Granholm v. Heald case and Seventh Circuit interpretations of it, ultimately urging an analysis for discriminatory-impact state legislation that may render Indiana's current beer laws unconstitutional, as needlessly protectionist.","PeriodicalId":175783,"journal":{"name":"Food Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Brewing Tension: The Constitutionality of Indiana's Sunday Beer-Carryout Laws\",\"authors\":\"Danielle M. Teagarden\",\"doi\":\"10.18060/18354\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Our United States Constitution contains both the Commerce Clause and the Twenty-first Amendment, however after decades of jurisprudence, the interplay between the two is still unclear. While providing background on brewery history in the United States and the emergence of the three-tier distribution system following the passage of the Twenty-first Amendment, this Article explores the boundaries of each constitutional provision and examines the legitimacy of the prevailing regulatory framework for alcohol sales. Using Indiana's beer laws as a lens, the Article builds upon jurisprudence set forth in 2005's landmark Granholm v. Heald case and Seventh Circuit interpretations of it, ultimately urging an analysis for discriminatory-impact state legislation that may render Indiana's current beer laws unconstitutional, as needlessly protectionist.\",\"PeriodicalId\":175783,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Food Law & Policy eJournal\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Food Law & Policy eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18060/18354\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Law & Policy eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18060/18354","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们的美国宪法包含商业条款和第二十一修正案,但经过几十年的法理学研究,两者之间的相互作用仍然不清楚。在提供美国酿酒厂历史背景和第二十一修正案通过后三层分销系统的出现的同时,本文探讨了每个宪法条款的界限,并检查了现行酒精销售监管框架的合法性。文章以印第安纳州的啤酒法为视角,以2005年具有里程碑意义的格兰霍姆诉希尔德案和第七巡回法院对此案的解释为基础,最终敦促对歧视性影响的州立法进行分析,这可能会使印第安纳州现行的啤酒法违宪,成为不必要的保护主义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Brewing Tension: The Constitutionality of Indiana's Sunday Beer-Carryout Laws
Our United States Constitution contains both the Commerce Clause and the Twenty-first Amendment, however after decades of jurisprudence, the interplay between the two is still unclear. While providing background on brewery history in the United States and the emergence of the three-tier distribution system following the passage of the Twenty-first Amendment, this Article explores the boundaries of each constitutional provision and examines the legitimacy of the prevailing regulatory framework for alcohol sales. Using Indiana's beer laws as a lens, the Article builds upon jurisprudence set forth in 2005's landmark Granholm v. Heald case and Seventh Circuit interpretations of it, ultimately urging an analysis for discriminatory-impact state legislation that may render Indiana's current beer laws unconstitutional, as needlessly protectionist.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信