Wartrace Liquor

Posted Thursday, November 12, 2009, at 8:26 PM

I have been following the Wartrace situation, re legalizing liquor by the drink, with much interest. I have come to the conclusion the situation is being approach in a most infantile and unprofessional manner.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is the legislative body, board of aldermen/women, are to set the policy for the citizens of Wartrace. That is what they were elected to do, yet they apparently lack the political courage to act.

In my opinion, they should follow the statutory proscriptions and vote up or down to allow a referendum for the voters to decide the question. To request the state legislature to do their job by private act, is a total cop-out and a shirking of the duties they accepted when they were elected.

I can understand the Hotel owners position and think they are entirely within their rights to petition the government, but the circuitous route to achieve their aim is, I believe, clearly unconstitutional as there is a body of law that has developed extending the "bill of attainder" prohibition to mean no law can be written for one person or a small definable group. If this is not so, it is clearly an equal protection violation of the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

Neither the town nor the state can create two classes of citizens and treat one favorably to the detriment of the other. If I were a merchant or potential merchant in Wartrace who wanted liquor by the drink and was otherwise qualified, I believe I could easily win a law suit on the above stated grounds.

I hope Sen. Tracy and Rep. Marsh rush to the Attorney General's office for an opinion before they spend a lot of time on a bill.

Comments
Showing most recent comments first
[Show in chronological order instead]

This, as others stated in the above passage, is a "stand alone" condition not modified by any other requirements enumerated in this Section. Read as if "The Legislature shall have no power" to pass.......the following statement omitting the conjunction nor.

"........nor to pass any law granting to any individual or individuals, rights, privileges, immunitie, (immunities) or exemptions other than such as may be, by the same law extended to any member of the community, who may be able to bring himself within the provisions of such law......"

-- Posted by cmcclanahan on Mon, Nov 16, 2009, at 11:39 AM

But the question is, Is liquor by the drink considered a general law?

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Sun, Nov 15, 2009, at 9:26 PM

DixieFlyer.........Good question.....Following is verbatem quote from the Constitution of Tenneessee.

Article XI, Section 8:

"The Legislature shall have no power to suspend any general law for the benefit of any particular individual, nor to pass any law for the benefit of individuals inconsistent with the general laws of the land; nor to pass any law granting to any individual or individuals, rights, privileges, immunitie, (immunities) or exemptions other than such as may be, by the same law extended to any member of the community, who may be able to bring himself within the provisions of such law."

-- Posted by cmcclanahan on Sun, Nov 15, 2009, at 7:29 PM

Carl,

The town did solicit a legal opinion from the town's attorney and got it. Why take up an Attorney General's time?

-- Posted by DixieFlyer on Sun, Nov 15, 2009, at 12:48 PM

Remember a few years ago Metro would not issue a permit to sell beer at the new Arena because of being next to a church.The State did issue it.The State has the right to give anyone a LBD or permit to sell beer no matter what city or county law is in place.My question is why then do we have to have local politicians and a beer board to vote on these?Let the State make all the calls.Remember Wal-Mart in Shelbyville had to pull strings to sell beer also.I can't remember if the city moved the setbacks for a day or if the State issued it.

-- Posted by mytaxesaremine on Sat, Nov 14, 2009, at 9:43 AM

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I am aware of the reports stating a population of 1000 registered voters is required to call for a referendum. I have been unable to find this in the statutes, but acknowledge the statutes are convaluted and extremely confusing in this area.

The main point I was trying to make, in my opinion, selectively "choosing" one person or establishment to be ordained with a license to the detriment of all present and future competition is wrong.

My point is the City of Wartrace may rightly hold whether to have liquor-by-the-drink or not, but they should not be able to hold one person may but no others can.

Further, my point is the Town should have secured an Attorney General's Opinion outlining the proper and just procedure rather than do it piece- meal.

-- Posted by cmcclanahan on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 3:28 PM

John is correct -- 1,000 are required for a referendum, which Wartrace does not have. Sen. Tracy was one of those who advised on the proper procedure of requesting an exception.

Mary Reeves

-- Posted by MotherMayhem on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 9:33 AM

I thought that was the same rason too Jicarney . . . the route they are taking is the one they have to explore.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Fri, Nov 13, 2009, at 9:01 AM

I believe, if I recall correctly, that the town is too small to qualify for the traditional liquor-by-the-drink referendum, and that's why they have to ask the state legislature to intervene.

-- Posted by Jicarney on Thu, Nov 12, 2009, at 10:00 PM

Politically Incorrect

Carl McClanahan

- Recent posts
- Archives
- Blog RSS feed

- Comments RSS feed

- Login

Near lifelong resident of Bedford County. Will comment on the issues of the day in, hopefully a cogent and certainly an honest manner. Will propose discussions not usually fully addressed in the mainstream media.

Hot topics

Narcissism
(5 ~ 11:43 PM, Feb 3)

Sentencing
(42 ~ 8:56 PM, Dec 23)

Election 2010
(3 ~ 8:24 PM, Nov 27)

Gambling Update
(16 ~ 10:52 PM, Nov 25)

Gambling Sentence
(7 ~ 10:45 PM, Nov 25)

Home