Alcohol Wholesalers’ Attack on American Jurisprudence

Beer wholesalers say they are supporting federal alcohol legislation related to shipping of alcohol interstate–the so-called CARE Act–because they are concerned about the uncertainty and bureaucracy associated with legal battles on the topic. The National Beer Wholesalers Association explains this position on its website:

Since 2005, more than half of the states have faced challenges in federal courts that threaten their authority to regulate alcohol and their ability to maintain a licensed system of alcohol controls. In a time of fiscal crisis and skyrocketing state budget deficits, these lawsuits put private profits ahead of the public interest and force states to spend scarce resources. …Unelected judges in federal courts who are unfamiliar with the needs of local communities are interpreting the same laws differently and issuing conflicting rulings, which demonstrates judicial confusion about the true intent of Congress. The CARE Act of 2011 removes this ambiguity and makes Congress’ intent clear regarding the states’ intended lead in alcohol regulation.

It is clear that wholesalers would like to halt legal battles that are destined to decide the constitutionality of important policies affecting consumers, entrepreneurs, and—most of all—wholesalers’ competitors. Their suggestion that such cases should not go forward because judges are unelected, uninformed, or might issue conflicting decisions is absurd. That argument is akin to suggesting that Congress should preempt judicial cases related to other constitutional issues—freedom of speech, assembly, or religion—because judges are not elected or may be confused about those issues. American jurisprudence is built on this deliberative, judicial process which wholesalers lament. It is governed by appointed judges, who are supposed to stay above electoral politics and are charged with, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, “a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.”  Unlike legislators, special interests are not well positioned to influence this process with PAC money, lobbying, or political pressure.

The wholesalers’ claim that Congress must resolve judicial conflicts is equally absurd. The framers of the Constitution anticipated that conflicting opinions would be a necessary part of this process. Accordingly, they organized the federal courts into a hierarchy through which conflicts would gain resolution as issues rise to higher courts, eventually reaching the Supreme Court when necessary. Moreover, the CARE Act will not remove ambiguity associated with legal challenges to state laws as wholesalers contend. Instead, it will hand an advantage to wholesaler interests within the judicial process, with the ultimate goal of limiting the expansion of market competition and consumer choice.

This post is excerpted from:  A CARE-less Rush to Regulate Alcohol: wholesalers Attempt to Secure Regulatory Fiefdoms.

Photo Credit: Nathan Laurell’s photostream on flickr.