Constitutionality.

- The Twenty-First Amendment removes spirituous liquors and alcohol from the protection of the commerce clause to the extent necessary to allow states to adopt and enforce appropriate laws and regulations dealing with the subject, and thus to burden interstate commerce to this extent. Even in absence of any protection under the Twenty-First Amendment, the sovereign states in the exercise of their reserve police power may, without offending the commerce clause, adopt and enforce necessary laws and regulations to effectuate their own protection against illegal traffic and trade in liquors. Atkins v. Manning, 206 Ga. 219, 56 S.E.2d 260 (1949) (decided under former Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 103).

Jurisdiction to determine constitutionality of rules.

- Rules of the commissioner promulgated under authority of subsection (h) of Code 1933, § 58-1022 (see now O.C.G.A. § 3-2-2), to control distilled spirits and alcohol are not laws of this state within the meaning of Ga. Const. 1976, Art. V, Sec. III, Para. IV (see now Ga. Const. 1983, Art. V, Sec. III, Para. II), so as to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction to determine their constitutionality. Brosnan v. Undercofler, 220 Ga. 239, 138 S.E.2d 314 (1964) (decided under former Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 103).

Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 103 makes the commissioner the administrator of the law and empowers the commissioner to promulgate rules to effectuate its administration and enforcement. Atkins v. Manning, 206 Ga. 219, 56 S.E.2d 260 (1949) (decided under former Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 103).

Rules within legislative authorization.

- Rules relating to transportation of distilled spirits and alcohol, and requiring that shipment thereof from another state through any part of this state to destination in another state must be by common carrier only, accompanied by invoice or bill of lading showing that shipment is made by shipper duly licensed and authorized, and that shipment is made to one licensed and authorized to receive such shipment, and further providing that any violation is misdemeanor, in view of the provisions of law and its expressed purpose to control all traffic or trade in liquor therein defined, come clearly within permissible legislative authorization. Atkins v. Manning, 206 Ga. 219, 56 S.E.2d 260 (1949) (decided under former Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 103).

Regulations to be in accord with law.

- There can be no rules and regulations made by commissioner, a violation of which would result in seizure, condemnation, and sale of vehicle being used by owner thereof in alleged violation of such rules, where these rules and regulations, made by commissioner, are not in harmony or in accord with the law. State v. Schafer, 82 Ga. App. 753, 62 S.E.2d 446 (1950) (decided under former Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 103).

Law permitted the state revenue department to promulgate reasonable rules and regulations not inconsistent with the title under which the law fell or other laws, and the regulations challenged by the two associations were not invalid on the ground that the regulations were unauthorized since the regulations governing distribution of malt beverages in Georgia that were challenged were all authorized generally by O.C.G.A. § 3-2-2(a). Ga. Oilmen's Ass'n v. Ga. Dep't of Revenue, 261 Ga. App. 393, 582 S.E.2d 549 (2003).

Violation of administrative rule of commissioner may result in suspension or cancellation of license of offending party or parties, but such rules do not make illegal an act or contract not also prohibited by statute. Gaddy v. Silverman, 86 Ga. App. 239, 71 S.E.2d 277 (1952) (decided under former Ga. L. 1937-38, Ex. Sess., p. 103).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 3 Am. Jur. 2d, Advertising, § 15. 45 Am. Jur. 2d, Intoxicating Liquors, §§ 1, 2, 22 et seq., 114 seq., 236, 254, 265, 297, 378, 383, 384, 508.