amendment21

Lindsay is doing Hollingsworth v.Virgina

**2.** __GRANHOLM, ET AL. V. MICHIGAN BEER AND WINE WHOLESALERS ASS’N, ET AL. __ (2003) 
 * 1.** Maggie DePaul 
 * 3.** Amendment 21 applies to this case because the court found that the regulatory scheme was unconstitutional because it failed to fall “within the core of the State's power” under the Twenty-first Amendment. 
 * 4.** The plaintiffs appealed and the United States Court of Appeals reversed, holding the Michigan regulatory scheme was facially discriminatory towards out-of-state wineries and had the effect of benefiting in-state wineries. The court also found that the regulatory scheme was unconstitutional because it failed to fall “within the core of the State's power” under the Twenty-first Amendment.
 * 5.** Michigan, like many other states, generally prohibits the importation of alcoholic beverages by any unlicensed person.Michigan law permits licensed in-state wineries to ship wine directly to consumers, but does not, as a matter of right, permitout-of-state wineries (which are not licensed by the state) to do so.

Tommy Cerene is doing United States v. Grubbs (1/18/06)

2. __Juanita Swedenburg, et al., v. Edward D. Kelly, Chairman New York Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control__ Argued 12/07/04-- Decided 05/16/05 3. This case has to do with the 21st amendment which ended the ban on the sale of alcoholic beverages throughout the US. Small wineries could not make direct shipments to customers outside the state. Typically a winery could only distribute wine by selling it to a wholesaler in the state. The wholsaler would then distribute directly to retailers or consumers. This made the large wholesalers very powerful because they decided what wineries they would use. 4. The Court ruled that laws in New York and Michigan that permitted in-state wineries ship wine directly to consumers, but prohibited out of state wineries from doing the same are unconstitutional based on the 21st amendment. this decision also affected another case, Granholm v Heald. 5. The growing internet winery sales market is an opportunity for growth for the small wineries, they should be permitted by the 21st amendment to sell to whomever they want. They now have the opportunity to grow successful businesses and not be run out of business by the giant wholesalers**
 * 1.Tori Gonzalez

1. Sam Mornhineway 2. South Dakota v. Dole (1987) 3.South Dakota v. Dole was was a case that considered federalism and the power of the United State Congress under the Taxing and Spending Clause. 4. The Congress had engaged in a valid exercise of its power under the Taxing and Spending Clause, and did not violate the Twenty-First Amendment. 5.The five percent loss of highway funds was not unduly coercive.