of the strictures of federal antitrust policy. One commentator is quoted as saying that the States adopted “ ‘bold and drastic experiments’” in price control. Post, at 357, quoting De Ganahl, Trade Practice and Price Control in the Alcoholic Beverage Industry, 7 Law & Contemp. Prob. 665, 680 (1940). In the next paragraph, however, this writer states that “[b]eeause the experiments came at a time when neither the fair-trade law nor the constitutional law on liquor was settled . . . there is uncertainty as to the validity of much of this legislation.” Ibid. When the Twenty-first Amendment was adopted, it was far from clear that the federal commerce power extended to intrastate retail sales of liquor. See A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U. S. 495, 542-548 (1935) (<HOLDING>). The Miller-Tydings Fair Trade Act of 1937, 50
holding that state regulations of intrastate wildlife are within dormant commerce clause recognizing that congress had the power to regulate boxcars that traveled exclusively intrastate because of their inherent mobility and connection to interstate commerce it is no objection to such an exertion of commerce clause power that the dangers intended to be avoided arise in whole or in part out of matters connected with intrastate commerce holding that intrastate transportation of imported oil from coastal storage facilities to bulk stations constituted intrastate commerce holding that wholly intrastate manufactures and sales of drugs are covered by section 331k of the act as long as an ingredient used in the final product traveled in interstate commerce holding that the commerce power does not extend to intrastate sales of poultry even when the poultry has been shipped across state lines