A Victory For Freedom

[Myrddin]

The purpose of judges is that people can say 'the law is an ass'

[Sava]

I'd like to point out that it doesn't MATTER whether or not it violates religious freedom. It matters whether it violotes the Consitution

uhmmm yeah... wtf are you talking about?

[Kuciwalker]

The people arguing over whether or not the statue thingy violates their religious freedom. They're getting annoying

[David Floyd]

I'm sure if the SCOTUS struck down the dry laws, you'd be screaming bloody murder for state's rights.

Individual natural rights are much more important than powers granted to states. These powers aren't natural, and the states themselves are artificial creations, therefore I don't see how one can say that the powers of Texas take precedence over my rights as an individual.

I'd be very happy if SCOTUS struck down dry laws, and any other anti-alcohol or anti-drug law on the books.

[Sava]

I'd be very happy if SCOTUS struck down dry laws, and any other anti-alcohol or anti-drug law on the books.

I'm not fond of dry laws, but in that case, I believe local governments have the right to set their own policies in regards to substance sale and production. I simply don't see how such laws are an attack on "individual rights". Is it so terrible to wait one day to buy a beer, or to drive to the next town or country? Geez... get a grip.

[David Floyd]

I simply don't see how such laws are an attack on "individual rights".

You don't see it as an attack on individual rights when a government tells you that you can't buy or sell (or consume) alcohol? Huh?

[PLATO]

On another note, I'd like to point out that it doesn't MATTER whether or not it violates religious freedom. It matters whether it violotes the Consitution, which also prohibits a state-sponsored religion.

But it doesn't violate the constitution(From a strict construction viewpoint). The role of the judiciary should be to interpret weather or not that the Congress compelled action. Beyond this, they are social engineering, a role that could be easily abused (given that their is little effective recourse in our system to the judiciary).

Let me reiterate at this point that I am against the display of religious symbols at government locations and am absolutely against any government involvement in religion. My point, once again, is that these items are better handled by the legislative branch than the judicial branch.

[Kuciwalker]

Yeah, didn't you read the first amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances; or to purchase, distribute, and consume alcohol."

[David Floyd]

skywalker,

Banning the consumption of alcohol is a gross violation of liberty, and would violate due process. Not to mention it is certainly outside of the powers of the federal government, and the 14th Amendment made it outside of the powers of any other government.

[Sava]

You don't see it as an attack on individual rights when a government tells you that you can't buy or sell (or consume) alcohol? Huh?

Nope... the government, in most dry laws, are simply saying NIMBY. It's not a national thing. Plus, I doubt there are many of these laws that are based upon consumption in the privacy of your home. If there are, they should be struck down. But I don't here an outcry about it. If it's not a problem, then why waste teh SCOTUS's time?

Plus Floyd, the thing you have to remember is, even though THE GOVERNMENT is telling you this, it's not a boogeyman. THE GOVERNMENT, in the case of local govt's, is a small group of people. It's democratic. If people wanted to change things, they could. In fact, YOU CAN! That's what's so great about Democracy.

If dry laws in small locales were an assault on rights, then the ACLU would be all over it. Trust me Davey, they never cease to jump on an opprotunity to sue some backwoods conservative county.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You don't see it as an attack on individual rights when a government tells you that you can't buy or sell (or consume) alcohol? Huh?

This assumes you have a 'right' to consume, buy, or sell alcohol. The government just gives you the priviledge to do so.

[David Floyd]

Nope... the government, in most dry laws, are simply saying NIMBY.

So what? Government doesn't have this right, unless you are actually hurting someone. Drinking hurts no one.

It's not a national thing.

Oh, so a city could discriminate against minorities?

Plus, I doubt there are many of these laws that are based upon consumption in the privacy of your home.

No, these dry laws have to do with selling and buying alcohol. Unless, of course, you're under 21, in which case it refers to consumption anywhere, and those laws are especially bad violations of freedom.

Plus Floyd, the thing you have to remember is, even though THE GOVERNMENT is telling you this, it's not a boogeyman.

When it is restricting my liberty when I'm not hurting anyone, it certainly is a boogeyman.

THE GOVERNMENT, in the case of local govt's, is a small group of people. It's democratic. If people wanted to change things, they could. In fact, YOU CAN! That's what's so great about Democracy.

I can't change anything if the majority don't want to. That's why democracy sucks - the majority can control what I do.

If dry laws in small locales were an assault on rights, then the ACLU would be all over it. Trust me Davey, they never cease to jump on an opprotunity to sue some backwoods conservative county.

Sorry, but I don't look to the ACLU to define what my rights are.

[David Floyd]

This assumes you have a 'right' to consume, buy, or sell alcohol. The government just gives you the priviledge to do so.

By that same argument, having sex is also a privilege the government gives you, right? I mean, there's no "right" to have sex, is there?

[Sava]

Sorry Floyd, none of your arguments are really compelling. I could understand if there was a national prohibition, but local dry laws are more of an inconvenience that a violation of your rights. There are bigger fish to fry. If you are so concerned with rights and freedom, perhaps you should frequent the ACLU site and learn about REAL cases when people's Constitutional rights are being violated.

[David Floyd]

I could understand if there was a national prohibition, but local dry laws are more of an inconvenience that a violation of your rights.

You could apply the "inconvenience rather than rights violation" argument to ANY local law. It's a silly distinction. That inconvenience IS a violation of my rights.

There are bigger fish to fry.

So?

If you are so concerned with rights and freedom, perhaps you should frequent the ACLU site and learn about REAL cases when people's Constitutional rights are being violated.

Because, again, I don't care what the ACLU says - it's full of left wingers who are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, but not very consistent. The same as any right wing group, actually.