The vote for or against bingo is unconstitutional at its base

If a person who is conscious of the constitutional ramifications of the bingo fiasco looks closely then there is an inescapable conclusion. The people have no “right” to vote on whether gambling is legal and at the same time the state nor the fed may decide whether or not gambling may exist as a private enterprise.

To make things clearer some definitions at this point must be stated.

Private Enterprise:
Business activities unregulated by state ownership or control; privately owned business.
privately owned business enterprise, especially one operating under a system of free enterprise or
laissez-faire capitalism.

Property Rights:
The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.

As stated by the Justice Sutherland all three are guaranteed by our federal constitution and no state law or moral precept may override them.

Now that a foundation has been laid lets look at why I say there is no “right” to vote on the bingo.

Property is as stated the means used to earn property by use of his existing property. Be it a piece of land, a building or a piece of equipment. Gambling is a game that in some cases is an action of purely chance and others require skill.

As the owner of such a business the proprietor does not force any patron to come into his/her facility and participate in any gambling. Therefore any government mandate that a restriction on his right of practice of any business that presents no direct harm is a violation of the 4th amendment

Those who would say that what he offers is immoral are working on the premise of the rule of man over rule of law.
The “Moral” case for banning a specific business or product has no basis in the constitution and therefore is not applicable to any constitutionally allowed government action.

There are those who say “Gambling preys on the poor” or “It hurts families” as their basis for banning gambling. These people are falling into the trap of the sanction of the victim to exercise the “moral” law to violate the rights of the businessman in order to protect the victims from themselves.

There are those that claim the gambling halls bait them in with the possibility of fortunes to be won.
Yes they do advertise that you can win big money.  But that is the purpose of advertising in a free market. The possibility of a fortune being won is actually there.
The odds are low but that is the nature of the game from the start.
Caveat emptor is the law of the land when the consumer is concerned in his/her interaction with the business.

No one forces the poor to go into any establishment to gamble or buy liquor or fast food or even coffee. No one forces the families to be hurt by the poor decisions made by those who support them.

The moment that the law is construed to protect a person or group from their own bad decisions on the premise that they are an assumed victim then the law has passed from its actual definition to a mandate of control of persons possible future actions actions and it has moved beyond protect of rights.

That being said we proceed to the claim that the people should be allowed to vote on whether gambling is legal is almost a moot point.

This is a republic by definition and as such the people have no right to vote. The founding fathers knew that the vote should be a franchise reserved to those who had a definite stake in the government and if given as a right then it would become a tool of plunder.

Therefore the allowance of the people to vote whether a business can exist or not is in direct violation of the constitution and by constitutional law the prevention of gambling or of any business that does not create direct harm is impermissible