Or maybe the city fathers expect Uncle Billy Sherman and the Army of the Cumberland and the Army of the Tennessee to come sweeping down the interstate from Chattanooga to burn and pillage unless the citizenry are formed to defend the place.
Bring the good old bugle, boys
And sing another song.
Sing it with a spirit that will move the world along,
Sing it as we use to sing it sixty thousand strong
As we were marching through Georgia.
Hurrah, hurrah, the flag that makes you free,
Hurrah, hurrah, we bring the jubilee,
And so we sang the choirs
From Atlanta to the sea
As we were marching through Georgia.
At least I didn’t mention giant squids. I can understand the get-the-hell-out-of-Dodge angle, although whenever applied, that has always been cruel. However, I don’t how the “ordinary democratic process” will help a 10 to 1 minority.
There’s not one really. It was passed about twenty years ago, and really only exists as a joke around town. I lived their ten years and didn’t know as much about the law as Uncle Beer did. No one ever got prosecuted or investigated because of this law. However, it supposedly did cause crime to drop when it passed. But that could just be lies and statistics, I’ve never looked at the data.
Kennesaw is a very small town. While it’s now entirely surrounded by countless high priced subdivisions, it wasn’t much back in the early 80’s. I always figured some good ole boys got themselves elected and passed it for kicks. (A group which probably included Wildman, the eccentric guy who runs the Civil War relics shop, thinks he’s Stonewall Jackson reincarnated, and has supposedly walks around with two six-shooters on his hips.)
[Princess Bride]So let me explain… no there is too much. Let me sum up. … [/Princess Bride]
It’s just a novelty law to put a small town on the map.
Well I hope so too, otherwise I would not need an lawyer would, I?
I just learned about the “firearm” law yesterday on the straightdope message board. Anyway, I am not as concerned about Kennesaw’s laws as I am Marietta’s, especially in regards to adult entertainment. Hence my post.
The constitution does not not outline individual rights insomuch as it is a general outline of the structure of our government and the way that is supposed to work. However it does mention that it is to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
I consider it an injustice that I can’t be allowed to watch naked people dance while I drink in a public establishment. Doing so does not infringe upon anyone’s rights. Being denied this the freedom to do so DOES infringe upon MY rights. If I am not infringing upon yours or anyone elses, what I do should be none of your god damned business. When you make my business your business, you are not insuring domestic tranquility at all. If I was “tranquil” I would not be ranting in the BBQ pit. However the conservatives are tranquil, knowing that other people aren’t allowed the freedom to choose to do things that they would not find appropriate doing. THAT was my point and the reason for my rant.
I already belong to political activist group, one that is set on getting Roy Barnes out of office. But ranting adds fuel to the fire, gets me motivated . . .
I refuse to believe that there is anywhere in this country that would have a bloc of pro-gang-rape voters, much less a bloc holding a 9:1 advantage. Maybe on the inside of maximum-security prisons, though I doubt even that – and they can’t vote anyway.
But on less-hysterical non-life-or-death issues, you’re right that a bloc holding a substantial majority would hold sway, and, well, that’s the point. The beauty of a federal democratic republic is that you’ve got a whole bunch of communities, none of which are the same. If there are communities that don’t think there should be drinkin’ and titty-watchin’ at the same establishment, well, that’s OK. Other communities will feel differently. And that’s OK too.
And if you live in one of the former communities, and you’re bent, come hell or high-water, on drinkin’ while you watch some titties, you have a choice: take the uphill battle of persuading your neighbors that their view is the wrong one, or move somewhere more accomodating to your point of view.
I work in New York City. On most any New York City newsstand, you can pick up – unwrapped – some fairly hard-core pornography. This is not a big deal in New York City. But in a lot of other communities, people understandably don’t want their little ones to be able to trot up to a newstand and start examining cervixes. And they can’t watch their kids 24/7. So they require that naughty magazines be covered in plastic and sold behind the counter.
And I wouldn’t have it any other way. I don’t think anyone should tell NYC what they should do, but then again I don’t think that NYC’s rules are fit for every community in America. Ultimately, those people who find the openness of NYC appealing can move here (and many do), while those New Yorkers of a more conservative bent can shimmy out. Everybody wins.
(And, BTW, minority views do sometimes prevail when they can present a strong argument. After all, if every white person in America voted along Machiavellan lines, no civil rights legislation would have ever passed – admitting new voters waters down the power of all existing voters. In this case, a strong moral argument – and a lot of hard work by activists to spread that argument – carried the day.)
ALadyLNO: The preamble to the Constitution is not enforceable as law. It lays out the broad goals of the Constitution, true enough, but it does not provide a legal remedy. You cannot, for example, seek to overturn a law on the grounds that it does not “insure domestic tranquility.”
Contra to your post, however, the Constitution does outline certain individual rights. I draw your attention to the first ten amendments and the fourteenth amendment specifically in this regard.
Rules preventing simultaneous drinkin’ and titty watchin’ may be stupid, but they are not unconstitutional.
DCU, noone but you has attempted to make any claims about constitutionality or unconstitutionality. Since the word “right” seems to get yr panties in a wad despite the fact that it is used all the fuckin’ time with no relation to the constitution, why don’t you mentally replace that word with “freedom”, which is what everybody else is talking about.
Why do you think that supports putting your personal and individual “tranquility” above, say, the general welfare of society, which is also mentioned?
Regulatory laws, including the regulation of drinking establishments, are consitutional so long as they do not infringe on anyone’s rights. So let me ask you: Precisely which of your rights do you think are being infringed upon by these regulations?
This in not correct, because the business of government is not merely the insuring of individual rights – though you might find a libertarian or two to argue that should be its business – but also to “promote the general welfare” and further policies that are considered to be in the best interests of the public at large – called, not surprisingly, “public policy.” The promotion of public policy is generally the rationale behind regulatory laws such as this one. You have not set forth why you consider that an insufficient reason for the regulations in question – just as you haven’t set forth which of your rights you think are being violated. As I have said, you have no inherent right to have a drink, or watch naked people dance in public, much less to do both at once.
I respect your right to rant about whatever you want, here in the Pit or wherever, but I also have a right to point out that it is IMO a pretty weak rant because you’re outraged over the violation of “rights” you don’t actually have.
I did not say it did, but the “preamble” does state that it is for domestic tranqulity among other things. Let me ask you this . . . can domesitic tranqulity be achieved by denying rights that don’t infringe upon anothers rights? will someone not be offended, feel that they were denied personal freedoms?
Isn’t it presumptious to assume that not viewing naked or half naked people dance while consuming alcoholic beverages is better for the welfare of society?
You wrote, “Regulatory laws, including the regulation of drinking establishments, are consitutional so long as they do not infringe on anyone’s rights. So let me ask you: Precisely which of your rights do you think are being infringed upon by these regulations?”
Sure regulationary laws are constiutional. That again was not the point. I was ranting because I was denied the right, unconstituional or not, to drink while watching naked people dance. Is fact that individual “rights” are regulated and can be, according to the constitution, supposed to change the fact that I don’t like it?
What exactly is not correct? My being pissed at the government for denying my individual rights? Or the fact that the American government denys many individual rights?
You wrote, " I respect your right to rant about whatever you want, here in the Pit or wherever, but I also have a right to point out that it is IMO a pretty weak rant because you’re outraged over the violation of “rights” you don’t actually have."
My dear, I am ranting beacuse of the rights I don’t already have, the reason I am ranting in the first place.
I am a non conformist.
"Progress comes from people who think against the grain. Without nonconformists, you don’t advance. - Saw Ken wye
Hmmm. I’ll ask again: What right are you talking about? The “right to watch half-naked people while drinking”? Once again: You don’t have that right. That’s not a right. The end. What, you think you just get to decide what rights you have? That’s one option, I suppose. And then, sure, you can claim it’s a right and get all pissed off when it’s violated, but then why not claim the right to be given a nice new car and a million bucks, and then be pissed when no one coughs them up? That makes about as much sense, which is to say none.
I have attempted to ascertain this information for nearly three years now, and it is to my good fortune that you are here, Jodi. This is a time and a context in which I can ask.
You’ve heard me define “rights” libertarianly many times. What I would like to know, and what no one has answered, is how do authoritarians define “rights”? I know that I can depend on your considerable legal expertise for an answer. Thanks.
My post was made in response to ALadyLNO when she mentioned a specific provision of the Constitution. In responding, I naturally made reference to the Constitution and the relative importance of the provisions therein. I mean, really, how exactly do you expect me to respond?
Furthermore, if you’ll peruse the thread you’ll see I’ve made two other posts, and those posts do not mention the Constitution at all.
I also note that several other posters have made reference to the Constitution and constitutionality, including the aforementioned ALadyLNO, zev steinhart, and Jodi. So your contention that “noone but you has attempted to make any claims about constitutionality or unconstitutionality” is simply false.
My post was made in response to ALadyLNO when she mentioned a specific provision of the Constitution. In responding, I naturally made reference to the Constitution and the relative importance of the provisions therein. I mean, really, how exactly do you expect me to respond?
Furthermore, if you’ll peruse the thread you’ll see I’ve made two other posts, and those posts do not mention the Constitution at all.
I also note that several other posters have made reference to the Constitution and constitutionality, including the aforementioned ALadyLNO, zev steinhart, and Jodi. So your contention that “noone but you has attempted to make any claims about constitutionality or unconstitutionality” is simply false.
Hm…I find this a very interesting discussion about the law.
Isn’t the whole idea of representative government to do what is best for the society, and to value the just workings of society over the rights of the individual?
In other words, society’s decision to have a society where rape is illegal is a more just aim than the rapists’ ‘right to rape.’
I use the word ‘right’ loosely - am not sure what synonym to choose in light of some of the other posts here.
My opinion is that the purpose of government is to keep people free. To make sure that nobody violates the freedom of others. Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. The government is there to make sure that you don’t swing your fist at my nose.
