03-07-2003 02:16									#61
	Put an end to popups!

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

	03-07-2003 02:16									#62
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: 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?

	03-07-2003 02:19									#63
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

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

	03-07-2003 03:13									#64
	Remove this text

quote: 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.

	03-07-2003 03:16									#65
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: 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.

	03-07-2003 03:19									#66
	Support Apolyton

quote: 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?

	03-07-2003 03:22									#67
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: 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.

	03-07-2003 03:23									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

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."

	03-07-2003 03:24									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

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.

	03-07-2003 03:24									#70
	Suffering from ads?

quote: 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.

	03-07-2003 03:27									#71
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: 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.

	03-07-2003 03:28									#72
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

quote: It's not a national thing.

Oh, so a city could discriminate against minorities?

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

	03-07-2003 03:29									#73
	Got spare money?

quote: 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?

	03-07-2003 03:31									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

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.

	03-07-2003 03:33									#75
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: 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.

quote: There are bigger fish to fry.

So?

quote: 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.

	03-07-2003 03:34									#76
	Support Apolyton

okay Floyd, stop your silly threadjack... create a thread about "Local Dry Laws" and we'll debate it in there.

	03-07-2003 03:34									#77
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by 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.

"gross violation of liberty"???

ummmmm...

	03-07-2003 03:35									#78
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Sava,

quote: okay Floyd, stop your silly threadjack... create a thread about "Local Dry Laws" and we'll debate it in there.

You brought it up.

skywalker,

quote: "gross violation of liberty"???

Anytime the government tells me I can't do a non-coercive action - in this case, drinking - then it is a gross violation of liberty.

	03-07-2003 03:37									#79
	Tired of ads?

quote: You brought it up.

uhh no... you first mentioned local dry laws in reference to "FREEDOM"...

	03-07-2003 03:37									#80
	Remove this text

quote: 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?

The only reason such 'right' exists is because the Supreme Court says so.

	03-07-2003 03:38									#81
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

You can be outraged by it then, while the rest of us ignore it in apathy.

Frankly, I find you concentrating on it MUCH more annoying (admittedly, I am a minor, and I don't drink ).

EDIT: re Floyd

	03-07-2003 03:38									#82
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by GePap The porblem is that "murder" is defined as illegal killing. By definition that excludes capital punishment. And this is clear in the bible, given what the punishements for various acts are, many of which lead to death.

Convenient semantic nonsense to justify legalized murder.

	03-07-2003 03:38									#83
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: The only reason such 'right' exists is because the Supreme Court says so.

to be fair... even if they didn't say so... my M16 would say so.

	03-07-2003 03:40									#84
	Inflate your Upload Space

Sava,

quote: uhh no... you first mentioned local dry laws in reference to "FREEDOM"...

No I didn't. Berzerker did

Imran,

quote: The only reason such 'right' exists is because the Supreme Court says so.

So if the Supreme Court said there was no right to have sex, and then Congress banned sex, then it would be OK for you to be arrested for having sex?

skywalker,

quote: admittedly, I am a minor, and I don't drink

Well there it is.

	03-07-2003 03:43									#85
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Convenient semantic nonsense to justify legalized murder.

Um... there is no such thing as 'legalized' murder. It's not semantic nonsense, it's called DEFINITIONS.

	03-07-2003 03:45									#86
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Sure, and murder is more of a moral concept then a legal one, otherwise, Stalin didn't commit murder when he forced millions in the Ukraine to starve to death. And the Nazis in charge of death camps weren't murderers either. Neither was Pol Pot, because what he did was perfectly legal.

	03-07-2003 03:45									#87
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Convenient semantic nonsense to justify legalized murder. Um... there is no such thing as 'legalized' murder. It's not semantic nonsense, it's called DEFINITIONS.

Ok -- it's great that we're telling people that it's wrong to kill people by killing people as example.

	03-07-2003 03:48									#88
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Sava, No I didn't. Berzerker did

So. He still didn't, and you said he did.

quote: Imran, So if the Supreme Court said there was no right to have sex, and then Congress banned sex, then it would be OK for you to be arrested for having sex?

HE may not think that it's ok personally, but the majority would, so sucks for him.

quote: skywalker, Well there it is.

You don't get it. We (judging from the comments of people in this thread) couldn't care less about our right to drink alcohol in some tiny, out-of-the-way town.

	03-07-2003 03:49									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Ok -- it's great that we're telling people that it's wrong to kill people by killing people as example.

No, we are telling people that it is wrong to MURDER people. DUH!

After all, we don't put people that kill in self-defense in jail .

quote: So if the Supreme Court said there was no right to have sex, and then Congress banned sex, then it would be OK for you to be arrested for having sex?

You are forgetting the Commerce Clause. What power does Congress have to ban sex?

A BETTER example is if a State Legislature banned sex, after such a ruling. Then yea, it's ok. Wouldn't like it, but it's still ok.

	03-07-2003 03:49									#90
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by MrFun Ok -- it's great that we're telling people that it's wrong to kill people by killing people as example.

No, we're telling them it's wrong to MURDER people.

EDIT: damn, imram beat me to it