The “Appeal to Authority” argument that Mr. Wolf makes here, and which, as we can see, is so easily dismissed, is not considered the best way to approach a discussion. Rather, the facts of someone’s argument (in this case Mr. Houchin’;s) should be taken on directly if we are to take any rebuttal seriously. Perhaps Mr. Wolf will come back and actually address the points that Courbin Houchins makes in this article.

What’s interesting is that Mr. Wolf and wholesalers in general like to lean on the 21st Amendment to justify all sorts of exceptions to standard, constitutional law. Yet when an instance arises when it’s not in their interests to take into account the 21st Amendment’s “exceptional” nature, they tend to ignore it. What says Mr. Wolf to the notion that:

“The Supremacy Clause says that the U.S. Constitution itself and the laws of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, a provision that is interpreted to mean, “in that order.” Thus, the same clause that underlies preemption of the Maine cigarette delivery law by a federal statute absolutely prevents preemption of a state wine delivery law by that congressional enactment, provided the state law does not violate some other constitutional provision.”

We don’t know exactly what Mr. Wolf thinks since he’s either too busy or unwilling to address this critical point.

There is also the critical point that in striking down a Maine law requiring common carriers to obtain signatures of those having cigarettes shipped to them, the Supreme Court simply found that states could not independently force a third party carrier to take responsibility for the product because carriers in interstate commerce are regulated by federal law, not state law, and are not the sellers of the product. This did NOT adversely affect any law or regulation requiring a retailer or winery, not the shipping company, to verify the age of the recipient of wine via the signature of someone over 21. All wine direct shipping regulations place the responsibility for verifying the age of the recipient of the wine on the winery or retailer, not the common carrier.

Perhaps Mr. Wolf will find time to address this point, rather than simply arguing, “Nuh uh!!!”

I will be happy to let noted 7th Circuit Chief Jurist Frank Easterbrook who, in hearing the oral argument arising out of the appeal of an Indiana district court face-to-face decision, asked whether “after Rowe, is it lawful for anybody to ship wine in Indiana since it is now impossible to insist that the carrier verify age on delivery,” because “[T]he Supreme Court has held that that such a law is preempted.” Respect fellow jurist Richard Posner voiced the same interpretation.

Rowe is a problem for those that advocate for direct shipping, because it means that states can no longer hold carriers accountable through age verification requirements.

Mr. Houchins ill-serves those who are interested in understanding the issues surrounding direct shipping by trying to understate the scope and importance of the Rowe decision. Rowe is relevant and controlling - something WSWA has argued - and it is a perspective at least two distinguished federal court judges have acknowledged and accepted.