Before Court, Who's Got Some Beer and Wine?

RussP

Well, I'm not the one who bought up my typing and grammer. And just as the original constitution was composed by people who seem to care more about their own interests than those of the people (as evidenced by the slave owners who make statements about oppression of minoritites), we now have politicians more interested in the health of their parties than the health of the country making the changes that keep the constitution alive. Maybe it's time to take it off life support and try to get the people needed in Washington so they can create something more appropriate for the world and country that exist now. The US is losing it's position as the world's best is more and more areas; this won't change following the same course we're on now. History is interesting but the future is what we will have to live with.

RussP

In reply to John McKee (since reply to your last post is blocked), any amendment past the 10th is a new addition not necassarily in line with the ideals of those of the founding fathers. And as far as the integrity of John Adams and James Madison to speak against the injustice and oppression of minorities while condoning slavery shows they are just as hippocritical and scheming as the politicians we have today. You can only guess my opinion regarding supreme court rulings who are forever influenced by those who appointed them. None of this has anything to do with what you percieve as a lack of education on my part but a near complete discust of what are government has become and I can only but wonder about someone who places much value on information from The Onion.

Marlin Perkins

Is it "hippocritical" to defend ones education with obvious fonetick misspeelings? I can only wonder about that misses the point of which the humor of The Onion is based.

RussP

Sorry, when I switch to the old, slow, hard to type on notebook computer at home with the bad internet connection, it's almost impossible to back it up to correct spelling and grammatical errors without it freezing up. I'll also be the first to admit to weak typing skills. None of that changes the fact that the actions of both Adams and Madison were in opposition to the ideas quoted or that the 14th amendment was not part of their work. It also doesn't change the fact that we now have a government which fails completely at representing the people and putting the best interests of the country first which was the point of my original post.

Oh yes, in case you missed it, "discust" was also an uncorrected mispelling and what was your second sentence supposed to actually say, it looks like some of the same type of errors I made.

Marlin Perkins

Russ, your errors in typing are really rather trivial compared to your obtuse view of history in relation to the constitution and the founding fathers. The constitution is meant to be a living document that changes along with the times. That's why it has amendments to begin with.And just because you feel discontented with the goverment hardly means it has failed. Tunisia might be a better example. Try setting aside political agendas and opinions gleaned from vitriolic soundbites and you may just learn something.

Erich S

I'm no lawyer, but it sounds to me like Siegel and his cronies are possibly engaged in racketeering -- or at least an argument could be made to support that case. How can two people -- his alleged "clients" -- hold up an entire city's election process?

Montemalone

I wouldn't think any (elected) judge is gonna stop letting the wine flow, if she wants to be re-elected.

Robert Wilonsky

The judge is from Bonham, so I don't think she much cares how Dallas voters feel about her.

rubbercow

It is true. At the TT on Hampton people just stand and look at the cases and the full two rows of wine. Everyone I have heard in the store, young and old, is happy to have it there.

RussP

I guess I missed the memo where the US gave up being a democracy. Californians vote to ban same sex marriage, the court strikes it down; Missouri voters decide to ban puppy mills, the state legislature is trying to reverse it; now Dallas voters decide they want liquor sales everywhere and business interests and their lawyers feels they can strike it down. What's next, those in office reversing our decision when we try to vote them out?

the_truth_sucks

I enjoy your definition of "democracy", and that each of the cases you cited in fact stand as a major blow to the democratic process. Each of your examples are cases where outside corporations, greedy civil servants, and a select elite few have used strong-arm, subversive, and back-room tactics to prey upon ignorant voters. A democracy this not.

I wonder if the beer and wine vote in Dallas would have even been on the ballot if the Keep the Dollars in Dallas group asked for signatures in grocery stores in Oak Cliff, or in East Dallas near Fair Park instead of getting signatures in the affluent neighborhoods in Dallas that ALREADY allow beer and wine sales. Or what people would say about the statistics on the rising tax & crime in the once prestine city of Flower Mound after it passed beer and wine sales, over the false numbers KtDiD posted on their website then immediately retracted once it was asked where they got their data from (btw they got it from a research company that KtDiD funded).

Democracy is supposed to be defined as a method of group decision making characterized by a kind of equality among the participants at an essential stage of the collective decision making.

Taking away knowledge, truth, choice, and a method of retraction are the tools of a authoritarianism government, not a democratic one.

As much as we all want a drink, I think we can agree that lying, corruption, and cajoling should not be the proper means to democracy, nor a quick beer.

John_McKee

America has never been a democracy, it has always been a constitutional republic designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority and carved out certain rights such as the secular, civil contract of marriage that are inherent rights of Americans that can not be put up to a vote.

The structure of American government is covered in middle and high school so I am constantly shocked that people believe that we live in a democracy when our government was specifically structured to avoid a simple democracy and the problems inherent within like Prop 8.

Hi!

You do realize theonion is a satirical website, right?

RussP

I guess you mean the tyranny of the founding fathers who truly meant all white men are created equal while denying women the vote and keeping blacks as slaves. And I don't remember anything in the original constitution about marriage but I do believe the original concept of a republic was more a matter of not being able to get the individual votes counted in a timely matter due to lack of fast or easy communication across the country. Today a true democracy could easily be carried out with computers, the internet, etc.

John_McKee

Actually the founding fathers were quite clear that the Constitution was structured to prevent a majority rule type situation:

“That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the whole world” - John Adams

"It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." - James Maddison

In fact, it is pretty clear that the structure of our government was specifically to prevent a majority rule situation, for instance, the Senate was never intended to represent the people directly, only the House was and the President was and is still not elected by the people directly. What has become de facto lifetime terms for the Supreme Court was designed to remove the "will of the people" from deciding the constitutionality of the law by directly removing the justices from any public pressure in their decisions. As for marriage the Supreme Court has decided it is a constiutionally protected right

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Seriously, this is stuff covered in high school and it is depressing that you apparently don't have a basic understanding of the history of our government and the clear intentions behind it's design, I strongly suggest that you check out a high school level US government textbook out from the library for the good of our country. In order to not be completely depressed by this I offer this link to The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/articl...