A Vermont statute established differential methods by which wineries may distribute wines in the state. The statute allows only $$small$$ wineries, defined as those producing $40,000$ gallons or less of grape wine a year, to obtain a $$small winery shipping license.$$ This license allows them to sell their wines in Vermont in three ways: through shipments made directly to consumers, through wholesaler distribution, and through retail distribution. All of Vermont's wineries are $$small$$ wineries. Some out$-$of$-$state wineries also meet this definition. Wines from $$small$$ Vermont wineries compete with wines from $$large$$ wineries, which Vermont has defined as those producing more than $40,000$ gallons of grape wine annually. These $$large$$ wineries must choose between relying upon wholesalers to distribute their wines in$-$state or applying for a $$large winery shipping license$$ to sell directly to Vermont consumers. They cannot, by law, use both methods to sell their wines in Vermont, and they cannot sell wines directly to retailers under either option. Plaintiffs, a group of California winemakers and Vermont residents, assert that the statute was designed with the purpose, and has the effect, of advantaging Vermont wineries to the detriment of those wineries that produce $98$ percent of the country$$s wine, in violation of the Commerce Clause.

A$)$ Which aspect of the Commerce Clause is California alleging a violation of$?$

B$)$ Did Vermont violate the Commerce Clause? Explain.