buying windows 7 license download ms office 2007 prof cheap windows 7 home
price of word 2007 http://www.policymap.com/blog/wp-content... cheapest 2010 microsoft outlook
where can i download office 2013 starter buy photoshop windows discount coreldraw x6 upgrade
http://www.toulouse-les-orgues.org/?item... buy adobe design premium cs4 upgrade cheapest pinnacle studio 12 ultimate purchase server 2003 standard purchase windows small business server 2011 buy flash professional
    buy office 2007 standard academic buy adobe flash cs4 professional mac buy autocad lt 2009 uk
  • cheap zbrush 4 cheap ms publisher 2007 cost of microsoft expression web
  • http://www.ncld.org/?pk_n=4569&pk_kwd=23... 
    corel wordperfect oem 

    Siesta’s Over

    On January 26th, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ended the puzzling status of interstate retailing in Texas created by the lower court’s decision in Siesta Village Market. The district court had ruled that out-of-state retailers had a Commerce Clause right to sell wine to Texas consumers, but only wine that had been purchased from a Texas-licensed wholesaler.

    The decision is another example of uncertainties resulting from the principal unresolved Granholm question: How does one reconcile the location-neutrality principle with the infamous North Dakota dictum to the effect that states may discriminate against out-of-state wholesalers? The Fifth Circuit’s answer, like that of the Second Circuit, is that Granholm extended Commerce Clause protection to wineries, but not to wholesalers or retailers, because national markets in the lower tiers would make it impossible for a state to protect the “traditional three-tier system.” As the Court of Appeals judge said about setting aside fundamental economic policy embodied in the dormant Commerce Clause to follow a judicial aside that was not part of the Granholm holding, “That language may be dicta. If so, it is compelling dicta.”

    Post-Granholm litigation shows clearly enough that judges, though not bound to follow dicta, will elevate it to persuasive precedent when it coincides with their value systems. The values question is whether states’ asserted 21st Amendment right to maintain a privileged middle tier trumps the Commerce Clause policy against differential treatment of in-state and out-of-state economic interests. All one can say at this point is, “to be continued.”

    by R. Corbin Houchins, CorbinCounsel.com

    1 Comment

    1. Congratulaions Texas! Score one for less consumer choice and higher prices on wines we don't even want. Bravo!

    Submit a Comment

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>