Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think Strict scrutiny is correct here. To the best of my knowledge people under 21 are not a suspect class, and drinking booze is not a fundamental right.
The fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution says, amongst other things:
"No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This means we can't have laws that apply to whites but not blacks, women, but not men, 40 year-olds, but not 30 year-olds, etc.
Children have always been treated differently under the law, as is reasonable and frankly, necessary. Legal adulthood has been decided to be 18 years of age. It's an arbitrary distinction, we could have chosen 17, or 19, but a choice had to be made and 18 it is.
So, my question is this. If 18 year-olds are legally adults, how can we restrict their ability to purchase alcohol without violating the equal protection clause?
No freedoms or rights, even Constitutional freedoms and rights, are absolute (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, blah, blah, blah).
The 14th Amendment requires that laws not discriminate and treat everybody equally. However, that's not absolute. There is a well established legal test that measures its boundaries: the laws are allowed to discriminate if they serve a legitimate government interest, where "legitimate government interest" is defined as preventing a substantive harm to the people.
For instance, in spite of the 14th Amendment, driving laws are allowed to discriminate against he blind or the severely mentally retarded or the old and demented. Why?, because there is strong evidence to suggest, and consensus among the experts who study such things, that the blind, severely mentally retarded, and the old and demented being allowed to drive would harm many, many people.
Here's an example from the recent news. A law banning same-sex couples from contracting civil marriages in California was stuck down as unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Why?, because the side wishing to ban such marriage was unable to show in court how allowing gay couples to marry would harm the people of California.
As to a drinking age of 21 and the 14th Amendment, you have to ask yourself: does preventing those under 21 prevent a substantive harm to the people? If so, then doing so is constitutional. If not, then it's not constitutional.
I'm aware of 2 court cases that dealt with this issue: Manuel v. Louisiana and Guy v. Michigan. I haven't read the decisions, nor do I intend to, but I imagine the State lawyers argued, and called experts in the field to testify, things like alcohol causes damage to developing brains and that human brains don't stop developing until your early 20's, that people under 21 are statistically much more likely to drive drunk that older people, etc, etc, etc. The other side either tried to refute these or agreed that they are true but don't reach the standard of "substantial harm". Whatever they argued, the State lawyers and their experts succeeded in convincing the judges that laws restricting those under 21 from drinking alcohol do in fact prevent a harm to the people.
Those highway funds are from the federal fuel taxes already paid by the citizens of that state, granted some states get more funding than they put in but that's the general idea. You're already taxed for those funds.
And, as I said, if you don't want that money back, you don't have to take them.
No one said "This tax goes for this project", its a general fund, and all taxes go to everything.
I think the current law is too restrictive. It's crazy that a 20yo can't legally drink wine or champagne at a family event.
Since driving while drunk is the main concern, perhaps the legal limit for blood alcohol levels should be lowered for people under a certain age. To ban drinking entirely is overkill.
I think the current law is too restrictive. It's crazy that a 20yo can't legally drink wine or champagne at a family event.
Since driving while drunk is the main concern, perhaps the legal limit for blood alcohol levels should be lowered for people under a certain age. To ban drinking entirely is overkill.
Most laws are dependent on the state. I think something like 29 states allow exactly what you mentioned in your first paragraph.
We used to be able to drink at 18 but not liquor they had 3.2 % beer...made us feel mature rub elbows with those 21 year old cougars at the discos...growl.
The fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution says, amongst other things:
"No State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This means we can't have laws that apply to whites but not blacks, women, but not men, 40 year-olds, but not 30 year-olds, etc.
Children have always been treated differently under the law, as is reasonable and frankly, necessary. Legal adulthood has been decided to be 18 years of age. It's an arbitrary distinction, we could have chosen 17, or 19, but a choice had to be made and 18 it is.
So, my question is this. If 18 year-olds are legally adults, how can we restrict their ability to purchase alcohol without violating the equal protection clause?
I look at it this way, old enough to fight, old enough to drink.
if you want one, then you can also do the other.
if the feds dont want to lower the age of drinking to 18, then raise the age of military entrance to 21 as well.
They have more liberal drinking laws in europe and less problems so that argument doesn't really fly.
That is actually untrue. I have posted many links about drinking in Europe in the past, not going to look them up all over again. You may do a search.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
With regard to the General Welfare, the Supreme Court had this to say:
Rather prophetic I think.
The reality is that the drinking age in various States was changed during the 1980s, when the federal government was using its spending authority to extort States into compliance with federal desires. The exact same way the federal government extorted the States into changing their speed limits during the 1970s.
All that changed after the Supreme Court decisions in New York v. US, 505 US 144 (1992) and Printz v. US, 521 US 898 (1997).
Actually, some states always had a 21 yr age for drinking, e.g. Pennsylvania. When I lived in Illinois in the 70s, the drinking age was lowered from 21 to 19 (I think), then back up to 21 later that decade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
I don't buy into this nonsense that the brain doesn't fully develop into 25 - it's junk as far as I'm concerned. I think the problem is that our society encourages the delayed onset of maturity, and it is a trend that has continued for the past few decades. There are 18-year-olds who can handle there alcohol responsibly and there are 45-year-olds who cannot. The difference is that, from a purely socio-cultural angle, there are fewer 45 year olds who have this problem because there are more of his peers who have adult-like responsibilities, so he is going to be less well-received by his peers than someone who is 18-year-old.
But the truth is, it's our society that encourages this. Some societies will simply not tolerate 18-year-olds who go out and get berzerker drunk, and they are stigmatized for acting like dopes. I think if we would just raise the bar a little and not equate drunkenness with being macho or cool, we'd be okay. We need to start treating younger adults like adults. That's the problem.
Well, the science seems to say it's so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
I think the current law is too restrictive. It's crazy that a 20yo can't legally drink wine or champagne at a family event.
Since driving while drunk is the main concern, perhaps the legal limit for blood alcohol levels should be lowered for people under a certain age. To ban drinking entirely is overkill.
Already answered, but I'll reiterate. In my state, a parent can serve alcohol to their underage kid(s). There may be a lower age limit; I don't know. A parent can serve a kid other than their own if the other kid's parents are present, e.g. at a party.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
