Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court rubs out Maine law regulating Internet tobacco sales[Supreme Court]
CNN ^ | 20 Feb 2008 | Bill Mears

Posted on 02/20/2008 6:10:23 PM PST by BGHater

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday tossed out Maine's law taxing the Internet sales of tobacco products, a statute intended to keep cigarettes out of minors' hands by regulating transportation companies.

In a unanimous ruling, the justices concluded the federal government's overall interstate commerce authority trumped the state's public health policing powers. A federal appeals court earlier had found the law unconstitutional.

"Despite the importance of the public health objective, we cannot agree with Maine," said Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority. Federal law says "nothing about a public health exception," he noted.

Maine's Legislature passed the law four years ago to prevent underage smokers from secretly ordering cigarettes over the Internet.

The statute placed requirements on private motor carriers such as United Parcel Service and Federal Express to accept packages only from licensed retailers and release them only to someone with proper identification before delivering.

Under the law, carriers were required to inspect every package containing tobacco headed for Maine, facing liability if they negligently or knowingly allowed minors to obtain the products through unlicensed retailers, based on a list from the state attorney general's office.

Shipping firms argued the law cost them time, money and efficiency while increasing their potential liability.

Besides alcohol, Congress would have the power to give states specific product exemptions from interstate commerce, but it chose not to do so, Breyer said Wednesday.

"It's just that if every state does it differently, it's going to be a nightmare," he said during November's arguments in Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with her colleagues on the court but urged legislators to get involved quickly to address the health concerns.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; US: Maine
KEYWORDS: internet; laq; scotus; supremecourt; tobacco
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last
To: mr_hammer

...flying pigs that is.


21 posted on 02/20/2008 7:16:18 PM PST by mr_hammer (Checking the breeze and barking at things that go bump in the night...stupid dog?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Gabz; The Ghost of Rudy McRomney; patton
I just re-read the article; and it seems that the decision related only to Maine's requirement placed on the carriers, not the taxing of internet sales.

The Jenkins Act covering taxation doesn't seem to be addressed at all, at least as reported in the article.

22 posted on 02/20/2008 7:19:48 PM PST by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge

Hmmm.


23 posted on 02/20/2008 7:21:48 PM PST by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: patton; Gabz; The Ghost of Rudy McRomney
The case was decided narrowly on federal preemption grounds, and the court did not discuss the Jenkins Act or arguments related to the dormant commerce clause.
24 posted on 02/20/2008 7:26:54 PM PST by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge

Well, that is starting to make more sense.


25 posted on 02/20/2008 7:29:35 PM PST by patton (cuiquam in sua arte credendum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin
Bump for morning coffee. I’ve got an eclipse to watch. ;)

I'm bumping for the same morning coffee.......not for the eclipse, too much cloud cover and too much snow...........expecting the 6am call that school is delayed or cancelled.........but hitting the sack either way!

26 posted on 02/20/2008 8:38:41 PM PST by Gabz (Don't tell my mom I'm a lobbyist, she thinks I'm a piano player in a whorehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper
“they mount a Constitutional Amendment banning smoking and tobacco (which I believe they WILL do).”

They won’t do that because tobacco provides an easy revenue stream via sin taxes.

I don’t smoke, but they recently raised the tax here in Maryland to a level that would seem to have passed beyond the threshhold of tobacco addiction and has had the effect of having people either quit smoking or smuggle their cigs in from neighboring states (PA, WV VA and DE). I understand that one store in Harpers Ferry, WV has seen it’s sale of cigs spike with a 500% increase in the last few months.

Way to go Governor Dufus!!

At least one store chain that I know of in Maryland, Weggmans, has also quit on the sale of cigarettes altogether. Curiously, the store takes the high road on the issue, stating that they have stopped sales in the interest of public health, but everyone knows how cost-prohibitive the management of anti-theft of tobacco is in retail.

I do agree with your premise; if it is “so bad” the government should simply outlaw smoking, but I disagree with your prediction and outcome. They never will.

They’ll just make you feel really bad and evil for engaging in this nasty habit. Too bad this state doesn’t draw as hard a line for murderers, rapists and child molesters!

27 posted on 02/20/2008 9:03:03 PM PST by incredulous joe (Waterboarding Advocate. Proud Nativist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tsowellfan

“illegal for anybody under 18 to buy energy drinks”

Haven’t they got any crime to speak of up there??


28 posted on 02/20/2008 9:05:56 PM PST by incredulous joe (Waterboarding Advocate. Proud Nativist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

Thanks for the ping!


29 posted on 02/20/2008 9:37:36 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: stompk; Madame Dufarge; Gabz

I found this unbelieveable, especially being a unanimous decision. Of course, they still had to get their little digs in against smokers and ‘health hazards’ in some of the comments. But a win is a win.


30 posted on 02/20/2008 10:25:00 PM PST by The Ghost of Rudy McRomney (Ohio & Texas-cross over & vote Obama! LEAVE NO DOUBT! TAKE THEM OUT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

Thanks for the Ping, now if they would reverse their Kelo decision, I’ll have more faith in the Supreme Court upholding the Constitution.


31 posted on 02/21/2008 4:55:56 AM PST by libertarian27 (Land of the Fee, Home of the Shamed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

The eclipse was awesome; wish you had had a clear sky! I slept like a rock last night. Felt good!

Now...as for this article...it’s good news for those that want to enjoy an adult, LEGAL product while following the current rules.

I hate taxes. All taxes. But you already knew that, LOL! :)

Have a good day...I’m on the fly this morning.


32 posted on 02/21/2008 6:24:09 AM PST by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of Rudy McRomney

I’m surprised that the 4 liberal SCOTUS justices ruled correctly. I would have thought they would throw out the law and rule based on the “greater good”. Good for them.


33 posted on 02/21/2008 7:52:27 PM PST by Eric Blair 2084 (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms shouldn't be a federal agency...it should be a convenience store.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: incredulous joe
“illegal for anybody under 18 to buy energy drinks” Haven’t they got any crime to speak of up there??

I guess they think that engery drinks and Tobacco (which are LEGAL PRODUCTS!) are more important than LOWERING PROPERTY TAXES (one reason I sold the family cottage on a nice lake), creating jobs and finding ENERGY.

34 posted on 02/24/2008 6:50:04 AM PST by EagleandLiberty (Tribal name -- RinoHunter (Spring training time!! Go BoSox!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-34 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson