Do normal people care about Indiana being last state to outlaw alcohol on Sunday

[JollyMon]

My statement was to put it in perspective. Why not start with things that kill people and get to liquor when the important stuff is figured out.

Liquor kills people so lets start with that.....

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Can't I do both? What if I want Scotch Whisky - scotchy scotch scotch?

Well, this is INGO and the right to whine like an 8th grade girl is enshrined in the penumbra of the INGO Constitution, so . . . sure thing!

Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness necessarily cover the freedom to perform voluntary exchanges between one another; sales and commerce.

I wish you luck, but you are running directly into the reality of the text and structure of the United State Constitution.

You are making a policy argument, which is cool with me, but not with any court.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Liquor kills people so lets start with that.....

It's a backward argument. In your example it's already where it needs to be, or Maybe we need to restrict on Saturday too.

liquor kills people just the same as bullets do. Liquor is simply a tool of men.

 

[HoughMade]

.... and the text of the constitution...

I'll let other take on the morality arguments. I have no dog in the Sunday sales fight and fail to see it in philosophical terms. There has never been a society free of regulation, nor would I like to live in one. Keeping the regulation to a minimum is a positive thing (and only having laws that are necessary) and laws that are not arbitrary are a good thing, but other than that and Constitutional compliance, I'm a believer in the legislative process.

I would, however, be interesting in the "text" you are talking about.

 

[rambone]

I'll let other take on the morality arguments. I have no dog in the Sunday sales fight and fail to see it in philosophical terms. There has never been a society free of regulation, nor would I like to live in one. Keeping the regulation to a minimum is a positive thing and laws that are not arbitrary are a good thing, but other than that and Constitutional compliance, I'm a believer in the legislative process.

I would, however, be interesting in "text" you are talking about.

As I specified in Post 375, I am referring to the inherent rights of "Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." (See Indiana Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 1)

To have these rights we must have the ability to voluntarily interact with our neighbors. There is no way around it.

 

[HoughMade]

I would surmise hat you wish to read that passage without judicial construction, for certainly you know that this clause has not been interpreted as you read it.

However, have you considered that an expansive reading of that clause, one that excludes judicial construction, would disallow laws that I am willing to bet you would find appropriate?

For instance, you say "voluntary" that's not in that clause. Therefore the government does not have the right to make laws punishing the involuntary interaction between neighbors?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Therefore the government does not have the right to make laws punishing the involuntary interaction between neighbors?

That's right, your honor!

It's just a transaction!

 

[Dead Duck]

Liquor kills people so lets start with that.....

I heard liquor only kills people on Sundays.
That's why they banned it in the first place....











That and the Minister's drunk son that died on the bridge playing chicken.......on a Sunday.

But hey, at least we can still DANCE!

 

[rambone]

I would surmise hat you wish to read that passage without judicial construction, for certainly you know that this clause has not been interpreted as you read it.

However, have you considered that an expansive reading of that clause, one that excludes judicial construction, would disallow laws that I am willing to bet you would find appropriate?

For instance, you say "voluntary" that's not in that clause. Therefore the government does not have the right to make laws punishing the involuntary interaction between neighbors?

The concept of voluntarism flows freely from the dictionary definition of Liberty:

Liberty, noun. "Freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice."


Take away "the right of doing, according to choice" (aka voluntarism), and add "hampering conditions," and the result is a deprivation of liberty.

There is no dilemma that the government lacks the authority to stop an involuntary interaction. An involuntary interaction may violate a citizens' "peace, safety, and well-being" (Art. 1, Sec. 1: reasons the government exists) and the "liberty and pursuit of happiness" (Art. 1, Sec. 1: retained rights of all Hoosiers).

 

[HoughMade]

Ah, but you are talking about the interaction between people, not the government's right to make laws.

So what you seem to be saying is that the government has rights to make laws in ways that are implicit in the Constitutional scheme, not just explicit. Who decides what authority is implicit and what criteria do they use?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Who decides what authority is implicit and what criteria do they use?

Pffft, easy, men in black dresses who can see into the penumbra.

 

[chipbennett]

Ah, but you are talking about the interaction between people, not the government's right to make laws.

So what you seem to be saying is that the government has rights to make laws in ways that are implicit in the Constitutional scheme, not just explicit. Who decides what authority is implicit and what criteria do they use?

Governments don't have rights. People have rights. Governments have explicit authority enumerated by the people.

 

[HoughMade]

Pffft, easy, men in black dresses who can see into the penumbra.

Sorry, I learned on INGO that this only applies to creating new rights for persons, not in defining the areas which the government can regulate.

 

[HoughMade]

... Governments have explicit authority enumerated by the people.

Not according to Rambone. There must be some sort of IMPLICIT authority. Because I've not seen where the state of Indiana has been given the EXPLICIT authority to outlaw such things as robbery, burglary, battery and rape. Can someone show me that Constitutional provision?

 

[longbarrel]

What do you think?

I think that if you grew up in Indiana, it probably does not bother you. If you spent $200 on a race ticket, $450 on a flight, $120 on a rental car, $125 a night on a hotel, to come to a race, only to find out you can't buy booze on Sun. well, that sucks. It just seems funny to me that all of the "My man" supporters, during "daylight savings" campaign, said the rest of the country has it, and we have to support it, to bring Indiana into the progressive era. These are the same people who don't support alcohol on Sunday or car sales on Sunday. you tell me?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

There must be some sort of IMPLICIT authority.

Oh, oh, I know Professor Hough, call on me, I'm ever so smart. Police power and States Rye-eets.

 

[rambone]

Ah, but you are talking about the interaction between people, not the government's right to make laws.

So what you seem to be saying is that the government has rights to make laws in ways that are implicit in the Constitutional scheme, not just explicit. Who decides what authority is implicit and what criteria do they use?

Not according to Rambone. There must be some sort of IMPLICIT authority. Because I've not seen where the state of Indiana has been given the EXPLICIT authority to outlaw such things as robbery, burglary, battery and rape. Can someone show me that Constitutional provision?

Clearly we are having two different discussions.

 

[chipbennett]

Not according to Rambone. There must be some sort of IMPLICIT authority. Because I've not seen where the state of Indiana has been given the EXPLICIT authority to outlaw such things as robbery, burglary, battery and rape. Can someone show me that Constitutional provision?

The tenth amendment of the US constitution is unclear?

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Not according to Rambone. There must be some sort of IMPLICIT authority. Because I've not seen where the state of Indiana has been given the EXPLICIT authority to outlaw such things as robbery, burglary, battery and rape. Can someone show me that Constitutional provision?

Don't be obtuse. Governments exist primarily to secure our rights, among these are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This is Federal language, but it is incorporated through the 14th Amendment.

 

[HoughMade]

Don't be obtuse. Governments exist primarily to secure our rights, among these are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This is Federal language, but it is incorporated through the 14th Amendment.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are incorporated by the 14th Amendment?

...and I am not being obtuse. It has been directly stated that the states only have the power explicitly given them in a constitution. If that's the case, we had either pass a bunch of amendments or we are SOL. The truth is, "general police powers" are implicit and need not be defined or granted a state in a constitution for it to be able to pass a law. Like it or not, this includes the "general police power" to regulate alcohol sales. It existed before the federal or state constitutions.

The issue here is not one of constitutionality, but one of legislation.....of course if someone wanted to make a constitutional "arbitrary and capricious" argument rather than "exceeding authority" argument, to me, at least, that makes more sense.