Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-24-2017, 05:19 AM
 
Location: VB
553 posts, read 613,168 times
Reputation: 397

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No. For example, in Wisconsin, those under age 21 can drink if accompanied by their age 21 or over parent, guardian, or spouse:

"Any underage person who does any of the following is guilty of a violation:

1. Procures or attempts to procure alcohol beverages from a licensee or permittee.
2. Unless accompanied by a parent, guardian or spouse who has attained the legal drinking age, possesses or consumes alcohol beverages on licensed premises."


Wisconsin Legislature: 125.07(1)

It's a STATE issue, not a 'covers all individuals nationwide' issue.
Nonetheless, the purchase of alcohol by persons under 21 has been restricted nationwide via fedgov's armtwisting of the states (National Minimum Drinking Age Act).

The states are free to do as they wish...for a price (which none are willing to pay).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-24-2017, 05:23 AM
 
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,530,928 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by jobber123rd View Post
Nonetheless, the purchase of alcohol by persons under 21 has been restricted nationwide via fedgov's armtwisting of the states (National Minimum Drinking Age Act).

The states are free to do as they wish...for a price (which none are willing to pay).
Exactly, starting in the mid 80s, any state who did have a sub-21 drinking age, would lose federal funds
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 06:03 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,801 posts, read 44,610,756 times
Reputation: 13626
Quote:
Originally Posted by jobber123rd View Post
Nonetheless, the purchase of alcohol by persons under 21 has been restricted nationwide via fedgov's armtwisting of the states (National Minimum Drinking Age Act).
That wasn't what was asserted:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Threerun View Post
National standards for minimum age drinking laws still stand, doesn't it?
The answer is: No, National standards for minimum age drinking laws do NOT stand. It's a STATE issue, not an 'applies to every individual, nationwide' issue.

Do you have any record of fedgov withholding funding from Wisconsin due to their law which permits those under age 21 to drink in licensed facilities (bars, restaurants, etc.) if accompanied by an age 21 or over parent, guardian, or spouse?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 07:31 AM
 
19,573 posts, read 8,491,960 times
Reputation: 10096
Wait until after the next election in 2018 and the Republicans have gained seats in the Senate and elsewhere up and down the ballot.

If you think the Democrats are a disaster now, just wait until the Democrat activists wake up and realize what has happened. The effect on their morale will be devastating.

Also, let's not forget, the 2018 elections will elect the state governments that will oversee redistricting for the next 10 years. The effects will be felt straight through until the 2030's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 05:08 PM
 
Location: Lost in Montana *recalculating*...
19,619 posts, read 22,502,117 times
Reputation: 24627
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No. For example, in Wisconsin, those under age 21 can drink if accompanied by their age 21 or over parent, guardian, or spouse:

"Any underage person who does any of the following is guilty of a violation:

1. Procures or attempts to procure alcohol beverages from a licensee or permittee.
2. Unless accompanied by a parent, guardian or spouse who has attained the legal drinking age, possesses or consumes alcohol beverages on licensed premises."


Wisconsin Legislature: 125.07(1)

It's a STATE issue, not a 'covers all individuals nationwide' issue.
So the Federal mandate is this-
"The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public possession of alcohol age to 21. States that did not comply faced a reduction in highway funds under the Federal Highway Aid Act."

All purchases must be made by persons over 21 years of age to discourage border hopping. Wisconsin had to amend their laws to adhere to the Federal standard, as did about 10 or so other states.

Appears as if the underage allowance to drink alcohol in the presence of a parent or legal guardian presumes the same afforded to other states which permit persons under 21 to consume alcohol at home only if provided by a parent.

Montana has that standard in our law as well. Those of any age below 21 may drink. But a parent or guardian must provide it. And it may not lead to intoxication. This is defined as a BAC not higher than 0.05 “or substantial or visible mental or physical impairment.”

So the Federal law is purchase age, and yes- all states adopted that standard. The root cause of the mandate was to discourage underage drinking and driving, particularly border hopping drives by kids to purchase alcohol.

The argument in the Supreme Court case found that the 'General Welfare' clause was indeed constitutional. So the argument still stands.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 05:15 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,801 posts, read 44,610,756 times
Reputation: 13626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Threerun View Post
So the Federal mandate is this-
"The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public possession of alcohol age to 21. States that did not comply faced a reduction in highway funds under the Federal Highway Aid Act."

All purchases must be made by persons over 21 years of age to discourage border hopping. Wisconsin had to amend their laws to adhere to the Federal standard, as did about 10 or so other states.

Appears as if the underage allowance to drink alcohol in the presence of a parent or legal guardian presumes the same afforded to other states which permit persons under 21 to consume alcohol at home only if provided by a parent.

Montana has that standard in our law as well. Those of any age below 21 may drink. But a parent or guardian must provide it. And it may not lead to intoxication. This is defined as a BAC not higher than 0.05 “or substantial or visible mental or physical impairment.”

So the Federal law is purchase age, and yes- all states adopted that standard. The root cause of the mandate was to discourage underage drinking and driving, particularly border hopping drives by kids to purchase alcohol.

The argument in the Supreme Court case found that the 'General Welfare' clause was indeed constitutional. So the argument still stands.
Purchase only. Not possession or consumption. Look at the Wisconsin law I posted earlier. It's a STATE issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 10:01 PM
 
14,489 posts, read 6,078,295 times
Reputation: 6842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
Wait until after the next election in 2018 and the Republicans have gained seats in the Senate and elsewhere up and down the ballot.

If you think the Democrats are a disaster now, just wait until the Democrat activists wake up and realize what has happened. The effect on their morale will be devastating.

Also, let's not forget, the 2018 elections will elect the state governments that will oversee redistricting for the next 10 years. The effects will be felt straight through until the 2030's.
I am not sure why Democrats are so confident. It is pretty funny
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2017, 04:14 AM
 
Location: Central CT, sometimes FL and NH.
4,523 posts, read 6,768,857 times
Reputation: 5927
Neither party is serving working people. One side is working to protect the mass accumulators of wealth and lessen the regulatory burden and oversight on their actions and the other side is looking to equalize the benefits of those not working with those who are working. The working people are largely hit with costs, both direct and indirect, to subsidize both ends.

A viable third party needs to emerge that focuses on policy that promotes an economic structure that provides jobs and wages sufficient to support one's self and their dependents. It is unacceptable for large companies to employ mass numbers of people at or near minimum wage and push the burdens of healthcare, housing, SNAP, etc unto the government. For this to happen the Social Security cap should be lifted, Medicare expanded and consideration of a supplemental retirement tax to ensure that workers have a guaranteed source of income in retirement to keep them out of poverty when they retire. With those three services strengthened and properly funded significant reductions could take place in other social payments. Social services could focus their attention on providing job coaching and training, as well as necessary supports for those truly unable to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2017, 04:43 AM
 
Location: Bronx, New York
4,437 posts, read 7,656,575 times
Reputation: 2054
I agree that the Democrats have an element that only likes to march and speak out, but too many of them 'sit out' when it comes to the ballot!

On the other side, the Republicans have, too, been led be a fringe element, such as those who came to Charlottesville.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2017, 04:59 AM
 
10,829 posts, read 5,421,103 times
Reputation: 4710
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
The Democrat party has become almost entirely a hate whitey and America party.
Yes, they act like whites are a minority.

And they sure want whites to BE a minority -- or better yet, just disappear.

Last edited by dechatelet; 08-25-2017 at 05:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:44 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top