During the 2007 legislative session, state Sen. Seth Harp (R – Midland) introduced Senate Bill 137, a bill that would allow each county or city in Georgia to decide by referendum whether to allow the sale of alcohol on Sundays. The legislation saw little action from the state Senate and eventually died in committee, but that hasn’t deterred Harp’s support of the issue.
He plans on reintroducing the bill when the legislature convenes in January.
Harp argues that while state tax revenues have declined, dollars from the alcohol excise tax has increased by 1.8 percent.
“I can think of millions of reasons why it would be attractive this year,” the Republican from Midland said, referring to the millions of dollars in additional tax revenues supporters estimate Sunday sales would yield in Georgia.[Source: Atlanta Journal Constitution, "Economy could revitalize Sunday alcohol fight", December 18, 2008]
New revenue from the approval of Sunday alcohol sales could help stave off the deep budget cuts that are expected in the budget, but this issue has always been about local control.
Local control over the local issue of Sunday alcohol sales.
If Sen. Harp’s bill passes, each county or municipality in this state would have to answer the following question:
Shall the governing authority [...] be authorized to permit and regulate package sales by retailers of malt beverages and wine for any period of time on Sundays from 12:00 Noon until 12:00 Midnight?
After a vigorous campaign for and against the referendum, the people would ultimately decide what is best for them.
If a majority of the voters in Fulton County say yes, then Sunday alcohol sales would be legal in that county. If a majority of voters in Houston County say no, then Sunday alcohol sales would remain prohibited.
Not surprisingly, the Christian Coalition vows to fight Sunday alcohol sales as they have done for the past two years, and more than likely, legislative leaders will bow to their wishes.
Jason Pye says that Georgia politicians simply don’t have the balls to pass it [Source: Jason Pye.com, "Sunday sales is back". December 17, 2008].
And he’s right.
{ 82 comments }
← Previous Comments
I guess I fail to see how restricting sales of alcohol on Sundays is the downfall of the Republic. Drinking is not a constitutionally protected act. Again, I do not have a problem with Sunday alcohol sales. If the people of GA want to buy alcohol on Sundays and it is a priority, then elect representatives that support your cause. THAT is the basis of our representative democracy.
The very first act of civil disobedience in this country was the Whiskey Rebellion, when the government first tried to get between us Americans and our corn liquor.
We’ve been fighting them ever since, and for the same reason.
It is UN-AMERICAN to deprive a hard working guy the ability to become better looking, more sophisticated, or a better dancer whenever he gets the urge. And sometimes, that happens on Sunday.
Dave Bearse — Shafer’s committee held hearings in 2007 and narrowly voted the Sunday sales bill out of committee. It was the rules committee chaired by Don Balfour that refused to put the bill on the floor after Sonny Perdue threatened to veto it. The Sunday sales advocates did not have the votes to pass the bill, let alone override the Governor’s threatened veto. Shafer commented at the time — correctly — that the threatened veto effectively killed the bill, but he did not stop it from being heard in his committee.
Anybody who opposes sunday sales is in the camp with the Christian Taliban period and is an enemy of liberty.
PD, your argument sounds good enough but it just isn’t so. The Democrats held power in Georgia up until recently. All the liberties, as you call them, could have been passed by Georgia Democrats. They weren’t. Just as SGL points out, it’s a two way street.
It’s not as if the Georgia Democratic Party is devoid of Christians who oppose the very positions you advocate.
JayB – Thanks for providing facts. It would appear that the Senate/Senate leadership didn’t want the inconvenience of acutally going on the record, and goodness knows, why put the Governor on the spot.
Based on past experience however, it may well have been signed by the Gov because its been established that the Governor doesn’t necessarily knows what he signs.
The only way you can popularize tyranny is by wrapping it in religion.
This is what we’ve been fighting, on a vastly larger and more consequential scale, in Afghanistan and Iraq. Different tyranny; different religion; same principle.
Bowersville:
The problem with your claim is that PD never mentions “Democrats” as having no problem Sunday sales, just liberals.
And no doubt you would have difficulty saying the Dixiecrats of decades past were liberal.
” If a majority of the people in a local community — and I’m not talking state-wide here, folks — have a moral objection to alcohol being sold on Sunday, then they have the right to have their local community government restrict Sunday sales.”
Faulty reasoning. If Sunday sales affected people in the community other than the buyer and the seller, then you would have a point. It doesn’t, and you don’t. People’s actions that don’t affect you are none of your business or anyone else’s business in the community. You could build a stronger argument against cigarette sales because of secondhand smoke.
I still would like for someone to explain to me how the aforementioned “community standards” would be improved by limiting when someone can buy beer. To be quite honest, community standards will only be held up by the people of a community–not the government. If you’re against people buying alcohol, don’t buy it yourself, and recommend to your pastor that he preach against it. That would be a better forum for promoting a community standard, especially one that affects no one other than a buyer and a seller.
The State has no business setting “community standards” period. The state is not a “community” by any stretch of the imagination. The only interesting argument here is the one between Taft and jsm as to whether Sunday sales is something to be determined by local government or not.
Based on tradition and precedent, we have a long history in this country of alcohol sales being a community standard. Dry Counties vs. wet counties have actually determined patterns of development and commerce.
Anyone who has taken I-95 through the Carolina’s has certainly seen the billboards for “South of the Border”. It was originally a shed that served beer at the state line. I think Manuel’s Tavern has similar origins.
It’s my considered opinion that if elections were to be moved to Sundays, the people would rise up and demand the right to buy and consume mass quantities of alcohol on Sundays. To be consumed immediately before voting (for you McCain supporters) or sometime after voting (for you Obama supporters).
“People’s actions that don’t affect you are none of your business or anyone else’s business in the community.”
Not saying I disagree with that, jsm. But if I live in a community — and again, we’re talking, like, a town here — where the majority of people don’t want Sunday sales allowed, and are willing to vote that way (either directly or by electing officials who agree), then I see nothing wrong with that.
My subdivision’s Homeowners’ Association has restrictions concerning what I can do with my property. If I don’t like those restrictions, then I (a) shouldn’t have moved here if they existed previously, or (b) should work to get the representatives on the HOA replaced to change the rules, or (c) move, maybe just down the street.
Again, Icarus’ eyes aside, “limited government” doesn’t mean “anarchy.” Local communities should have every right to set their local standards as they see fit.
“To be quite honest, community standards will only be held up by the people of a community — not the government.”
To be quite honest, the local community’s government IS the people of that community – or at least is representative of the people of that community. There’s no such thing as “government” as an entity; you can’t touch it, you can’t smell it (knock it off, Icarus), you can’t see it, etc. Civil government is simply an agreed-upon concept, and if a local community can’t set their own community’s standards, and act accordingly either directly or through their elected representatives, then you aren’t engaging in “freedom” or “liberty” — you’re engaging in anarchy.
And I agree with Doug: The state is not a “community” by any stretch of the imagination.
I think a good compromise might be to enact something similar to Ohio’s laws regarding alcohol sales. Allow a local referendum by precinct or residency area (defined as two or more contiguous precincts located within a single county) to determine the issue.
Allow local control without interference by the political class.
“To be quite honest, the local community’s government IS the people of that community – or at least is representative of the people of that community.”
Right, the government is made up of people who are supposed to represent We the People. However, I don’t elect people to tell me how to run my personal life–I elect them to manage the system that protects my freedom, my property, and my physical life. I set my own personal moral standards by how I live.
While government is a representation of the people, it should have limits so that those given the responsibility of representation don’t weasel their way too far into my personal affairs.
If the people in a community don’t want alcohol sold on Sunday, they won’t go out and buy it on Sunday. No other regulation is needed.
I’ve now had a few Friday beverages, and I’m rolling my eyes at Taft “just because”.
Communities don’t have rights,only individuals have rights! Community standards is in reality just another name for tyranny of the majority. The community votes to trample on individual rights.
Watch those barroom eyes, Icarus…
If I can rent my convention and event center on a Sunday and have a cash bar, I can make enough off that bar to offer two nights free meeting space to a meetup, not-for-profit or neighborhood group.
I am not liking this ‘retail’ restriction. Restaurants, bowling alleys, hotels, stadiums, convention centers over 3500 capacity all get a Sunday pass and can sell alcohol. Just because my building only holds 600 should not be a reason to lump me in with night clubs, the true target of sunday blue laws.
Being a 5 minute scooter ride to the Dome makes me motivated to do some lobbying myself.
Rick Day on a 5 minute scooter ride.
One more reason to chuckle today.
Thanks for that visual.
(Now back to guarding against Bill Simon picking on unsuspecting black preacherfolk.)
Rick, it’s simple.
Owners of restaurants, bowling alleys, hotels, stadiums, and convention centers over 3500 capacity have enough money to pay for lobbyists and large campaign donations. So, they get a pass.
You don’t, and so, you don’t.
Taft Republican —
So are you a Unitarian like William Taft?
Taft Republican has a picture of “Mr. Republican” Robert Taft; not President William Howard Taft. O_o
GOPeach – no, are you a Methodist like most of the board members of Peach State Bank?
(see how far irrelevant postings can take you?)
JSM Sez this: “People’s actions that don’t affect you are none of your business or anyone else’s business in the community. “
Thus my entire argument that the pro-life people are flat wrong on abortion.
Thank you very much, JSM, for quite the salient point.
Nice try, Bill, but you’re smarter than this. The pro-life argument is about Constitutionally-protected life.
Apples and oranges.
“You don’t, and so, you don’t.”
So being able to afford lobbyists is the justification for individuals not having rights?
The pro-life argument is about Constitutionally-protected life.
Nice try, JSM. It is only your opinion that the fetus is a “Constitutionally-protected life.”
And yet, according to the US Supreme Court, it is not.
Damn Activist Judges! Deciding what is life and whether the 2nd amendment protects individuals or the government.
Next thing they’ll do is cancel Christmas! Oh wait.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43438
Those Bastards!
Sunday sales bans are nothing but hypocritical use of the police power of government in order to control the behavior of others and force everyone else to follow a religious doctrine.
If the suporters of the Sunday ban weren’t such hypocrites, they would only go to church on Sunday and then straight home. No eating out at restaurants, stopping by the grocery store, no trips to the mall or Wal Mart. They wouldn’t even be in any store where they could be offended at the sight of some hellbound heathen purchasing a six-pack.
Nice try, Bill. It is only your opinion that the Negro is a “Constitutionally-protected person.”
And yet, according to the US Supreme Court, it is not.
‘It is only your opinion that the Negro is a “Constitutionally-protected person.”’
Wow.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }