Questions Do you feel this is an integral part or matter of states rights? If so why..please explain yourself.
Or do you feel this is a discriminatory use of the state's rights to allow state protection and is in itself unconstitutional? If so why...explain yourself.
No, I don't see this as a valid States-rights issue, because alcohol as an item of commerce is being single out as a special case. The question is: is it?
Only by association with Prohibition, which was itself an experiment, and a failed one at that. States are using a fragment of fossil legislation ... and it's not original, just a plaster cast ... and a poor copy.
Well, not everything that's bogus is actually unconstitutional. At least - and this may sound unduly subtle/clever - until it has been found to be.
I am not sure, but the winery business might be part of an anti-Ma-Pa phenomenon that gathered momentum Post-WWII, and redefined business across America. Wal-Mart is only the most recent manifestation.
Some of these Ma-Pa suppression devices were quite dubious, in my mind, and it would not at all surprise me to find they were used against small wineries.
Example: Small slaughter houses used to exist all over the land. At a certain point, the newly consolidating slaughterhouse industry 'went after' the little guys. Regulations were passed, ruining them: each slaughtering business had to have an attached office within the facility, for the sole
use of the government inspector who would come around for an hour or two, once a year.
Many slaughter houses operated in former milking parlors and such, and were literally one-person businesses. Oh: they had to have on-hand several hundred pounds of Federal regulations, in the premises. Thousands of dollars.
Did small wine operations suffer similar mistreatment? Were antique Prohibition statutes used to hurt them, without a compelling justification?
If so, it may be stopped. This might be the tip of a more general iceberg.