First they came for the Big Gulps....

[HoyaSinceBirth]

Jun 3, 2012 12:03:11 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

May 31, 2012 10:40:56 GMT -5 thebin said:

I agree with this strongly but would add that 18 year olds (and 19 and 20 year olds) are NOT minors and I've never understood for a second how 21 year-old drinking laws were not quickly eviscerated as unconstitutional. Well except that no politicians had the stomach to take on M.A.D.D.

At first they came for the 20 year old's six pack...and I did not speak out for I was no longer 20 years-old....

FWIW, this is one of the major reasons that the drinking age became 21 in this country:

www.toosmarttostart.samhsa.gov/families/facts/brain.aspx

Please forgive the incredibly crappy government PSA website; I was too lazy to look for a better link.

As for unconstitutionality of the minimum drinking age laws, they're clearly within the police power of individual States. Once again you are confusing your perception of a law as foolish with its constitutionality.

For the record, I absolutely agree with SSHoya's post.

If this was their motivation then they royally screwed up. Studies have shown the brain doesn't really finish developing till 25 so if we're really not wanting people to drink for fear of damaging developing brains the legal age to drink should be 25.

[thebin]

Q.E.D.

Oh this fun. What other things might be bad for people? As long as it will not affect us, there are all sorts of rights i'm willing to take away from other american citizens who are legal adults. Hey- the states' policing powers overrule the constitution do they not? Surely the govt should be policing away all potentially risky rights for a younger subset of Americans with historically bad voter turnout tendencies.

But back to the demon grape: Well by the time you are 25 you should be more responsible anyway so why not make it 30? By that point people wil have lost interest. You know maybe we do have something to learn about the extent that budweiser can really be allowed to thrive in the land of the free from the likes of our pals in saudi arabia.

[AustinHoya03]

Jun 4, 2012 20:56:43 GMT -5 thebin said:

Hey- the states' policing powers overrule the constitution do they not? Surely the govt should be policing away all potentially risky rights for a younger subset of Americans with historically bad voter turnout tendencies.

As usual, I agree with you on the stupidity of the law and yet marvel at the fact that you find unlimited rights in the Constitution (as long as they are John Stuart Mill approved, they must be in there somewhere). Care to explain exactly where the right to consume alcohol at a somewhat arbitrary age of majority is enumerated? ON EDIT: I went back to the last page and noticed you cited the equal protection clause. I suppose then, that you're just as angry that toddlers can't drive. Clearly they are not being afforded equal protection of the laws. Never heard of the rational basis test, I presume?

Also, let's play your game in reverse: If you're okay with 18, why not 14? And if you're not okay with that, why are your reasons more valid than the reasons of those who would like the legal drinking age to be 18, 19, or 21?

[SSHoya]

How about this anomaly? Until 1985, it was DOD policy to allow soldiers to drink on post. The reasoning being that if you were old enough to serve your country you should be able to drink. When I was first on active duty, we had beer machines on base -- plunk in two quarters and get a cool one.

The policy changed when MADD and other groups started their campaign against drunk driving and underaged drinking. DOD changed its policy to allow soldiers to drink depending upon what each state's drinking age wherever the soldier was posted. Later, all of the states in the US changed their minimum drinking ages to 21 rendering moot the the policy in the US. However, overseas, it is still 21, mandated by DOD regulation.

[thebin]

Jun 4, 2012 23:37:21 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

Jun 4, 2012 20:56:43 GMT -5 thebin said:

Hey- the states' policing powers overrule the constitution do they not? Surely the govt should be policing away all potentially risky rights for a younger subset of Americans with historically bad voter turnout tendencies.

As usual, I agree with you on the stupidity of the law and yet marvel at the fact that you find unlimited rights in the Constitution (as long as they are John Stuart Mill approved, they must be in there somewhere). Care to explain exactly where the right to consume alcohol at a somewhat arbitrary age of majority is enumerated? ON EDIT: I went back to the last page and noticed you cited the equal protection clause. I suppose then, that you're just as angry that toddlers can't drive. Clearly they are not being afforded equal protection of the laws. Never heard of the rational basis test, I presume?

Also, let's play your game in reverse: If you're okay with 18, why not 14? And if you're not okay with that, why are your reasons more valid than the reasons of those who would like the legal drinking age to be 18, 19, or 21?

The answers to all of these questions can be found in even a cursory reading of the post you at once agree with but find so aggravating: legal adulthood is where all lines should be drawn. That has the merit of being non-arbitrary and legally consistent. Alas I do not start with the premise as you seem to do that if the constitution doesnt mention it (like breathing, poker, sewing, etc.) that means I can be legally prevented from doing it even if it doesn't harm others. (Drinking only- not drunk driving) As to why the equal protection clause doesnt apply to infants driving....I'll leave that one to you to figure out. (hint: see first sentence. )

[jgalt]

The constitution and its amendments were first authored to limit the scope of the federal governments powers not define the narrow set of rights given to its citizens. The constitution limits the federal governments powers. Its purpose was to define what areas of citizen life the federal government can control and those it can not.

It is unnecessary for the constitution to list something as a right of the people, for it to be a right of the people. If the constitution doesnt expressly grant a right to the federal government, that power is reserved for the states.

[thebin]

Totally agree that the 10th amendment establishes that things left out of the constitution are meant to be presumed rights, not presumed areas for state regulation/prohibition. But the problem is the embarrassing national drinking age actually derives from those states (not US Fed)....but because all 50 of them were coerced (with heavy hand) into adopting the same "state right" to prohibit millions of American citizens from doing what others were still allowed to. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me the equal protection clause exists exactly to prohibit that kind of classification of citizens (ADULT citizens Austin) into 1st class and 2nd class.

The "one day you'll grow up and join the first class of citizens" excuse doesn't alleviate the fact that adult citizens are being prevented from engaging in a right that would be identified as such by all manner of western societies for literally thousands of years. In that way I'd argue the right to drink a beer at 18 is far more fundamental than the "right" to drive a car before 18 or even at 18. But we convince teens instead that booze is forbidden fruit and they must not partake. Do as we say, not as we do.......Drive your car by all means at 16....where you can drive it to places where you and your friends can binge drink out of site since that's really the only way you can. And that's working out spectactularly well as one could have predicted. This is not sound policy. And it is the direct result not of careful analysis but of the coercian by the lobby known as MADD who politicians were afraid to disagree with for obvious (but bad) reasons.

[TBird41]

Jun 5, 2012 12:25:06 GMT -5 thebin said:

Totally agree that the 10th amendment establishes that things left out of the constitution are meant to be presumed rights, not presumed areas for state regulation/prohibition. But the problem is the embarrassing national drinking age actually derives from those states (not US Fed)....but because all 50 of them were coerced (with heavy hand) into adopting the same "state right" to prohibit millions of American citizens from doing what others were still allowed to. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me the equal protection clause exists exactly to prohibit that kind of classification of citizens (ADULT citizens Austin) into 1st class and second class.

The "one day you'll grow up and join the first class of citizens" excuse doesn't alleviate the fact that adult citizens are being prevented from engaging in a right that would be identified as such by all manner of western societies for literally thousands of years. In that way I'd argue the right to drink a beer at 18 is far more fundamental than the "right" to drive a car before 18. But we convince teens instead that booze is forbidden fruit and they must not partake. Do as we say, not as we do.......and that's working out spectactularly well as one could have predicted.

I don't necessarily disagree with your take on the age limit, but one thing to consider is that if, in trying to make an Equal Protection claim for the right to drink beer, we make "age" a protected (aka suspect) class constitutionally (like race is) then its going to be even harder for our society to function.

Right now, as a non-suspect class, age gets rational basis review aka the gov't wins. If it becomes a suspect class, then gov't action classifying by age gets strict scrutiny aka the member of the class being discriminated against by the gov't on the basis of their age wins. Age could also be considered a quasi-suspect class, like gender is, at which point it gets intermediate scrutiny, where the outcome isn't assured one way or the other, but that's a pretty unsettled doctrine, which derives its origin mainly from the fact that Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanted to make VMI admit women.

[AustinHoya03]

Jun 5, 2012 11:36:47 GMT -5 jgalt said:

The constitution and its amendments were first authored to limit the scope of the federal governments powers not define the narrow set of rights given to its citizens. The constitution limits the federal governments powers. Its purpose was to define what areas of citizen life the federal government can control and those it can not.

It is unnecessary for the constitution to list something as a right of the people, for it to be a right of the people. If the constitution doesnt expressly grant a right to the federal government, that power is reserved for the states.

Do you think I disagree with this? Here's what I've said.

1. Generally, regulatory powers (such as the power to set a minimum drinking age) rest with the states. The state cannot regulate areas which the federal government is prohibited from regulating.

2. Those areas (speech, arms, etc.) are often referred to as "enumerated rights."

3. So when thebin is SHOCKED, just ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED, that setting a minimum drinking age is not unconstitutional, it's fair for me to ask where the right for 12 year olds to drink alcohol is enumerated.

So, to be clear, I don't disagree with your "everyone has the right to do everything" position. Everyone has the "right" to drink, gamble, eat hallucinogenic mushrooms, buy liquor on Sundays, be naked in public, etc. I am not arguing with this. But the State has the authority to restrict those rights if it has a rational basis for doing so. Don't like it? Vote, contribute money to the Libertarian party, or run for office. But don't throw up your hands and say "I don't like it so it must be unconstitutional" every time a law that doesn't fit the Ayn Rand point of view is passed.

Do you disagree that the Constitution gives broad authority to the States and local governments to enact regulations such as a minimum drinking age?

[AustinHoya03]

Jun 5, 2012 5:07:24 GMT -5 thebin said:

Jun 4, 2012 23:37:21 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

As usual, I agree with you on the stupidity of the law and yet marvel at the fact that you find unlimited rights in the Constitution (as long as they are John Stuart Mill approved, they must be in there somewhere). Care to explain exactly where the right to consume alcohol at a somewhat arbitrary age of majority is enumerated? ON EDIT: I went back to the last page and noticed you cited the equal protection clause. I suppose then, that you're just as angry that toddlers can't drive. Clearly they are not being afforded equal protection of the laws. Never heard of the rational basis test, I presume?

Also, let's play your game in reverse: If you're okay with 18, why not 14? And if you're not okay with that, why are your reasons more valid than the reasons of those who would like the legal drinking age to be 18, 19, or 21?

The answers to all of these questions can be found in even a cursory reading of the post you at once agree with but find so aggravating: legal adulthood is where all lines should be drawn. That has the merit of being non-arbitrary and legally consistent. Alas I do not start with the premise as you seem to do that if the constitution doesnt mention it (like breathing, poker, sewing, etc.) that means I can be legally prevented from doing it even if it doesn't harm others. (Drinking only- not drunk driving) As to why the equal protection clause doesnt apply to infants driving....I'll leave that one to you to figure out. (hint: see first sentence. )

But legal adulthood IS somewhat arbitrary, isn't it? A quick Wikipedia search indicates it's 14 in Armenia and 21 in Azerbaijan. What are the non-arbitrary criteria you are using to settle on 18? And if you choose to share those with us, why don't I get to play your game of saying that I disagree with those criteria, so they are just wrong and we can't use them?

Also, if we're employing your rhetoric and view of the Equal Protection Clause, simply setting an age of majority could be viewed as an equal protection issue. "I want to set an age at which the government can't regulate your behavior" sound suspiciously similar to "I want to set an age at which the government can't prevent you from drinking alcohol."

[jgalt]

Jun 5, 2012 14:31:27 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

Jun 5, 2012 11:36:47 GMT -5 jgalt said:

The constitution and its amendments were first authored to limit the scope of the federal governments powers not define the narrow set of rights given to its citizens. The constitution limits the federal governments powers. Its purpose was to define what areas of citizen life the federal government can control and those it can not.

It is unnecessary for the constitution to list something as a right of the people, for it to be a right of the people. If the constitution doesnt expressly grant a right to the federal government, that power is reserved for the states.

Do you think I disagree with this? Here's what I've said.

1. Generally, regulatory powers (such as the power to set a minimum drinking age) rest with the states. The state cannot regulate areas which the federal government is prohibited from regulating.

2. Those areas (speech, arms, etc.) are often referred to as "enumerated rights."

3. So when thebin is SHOCKED, just ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED, that setting a minimum drinking age is not unconstitutional, it's fair for me to ask where the right for 12 year olds to drink alcohol is enumerated.

So, to be clear, I don't disagree with your "everyone has the right to do everything" position. Everyone has the "right" to drink, gamble, eat hallucinogenic mushrooms, buy liquor on Sundays, be naked in public, etc. I am not arguing with this. But the State has the authority to restrict those rights if it has a rational basis for doing so. Don't like it? Vote, contribute money to the Libertarian party, or run for office. But don't throw up your hands and say "I don't like it so it must be constitutional" every time a law that doesn't fit the Ayn Rand point of view is passed.

Do you disagree that the Constitution gives broad authority to the States and local governments to enact regulations such as a minimum drinking age?

What I posted wasnt direct at anyone in particular. I just wanted to put it out there that the federal government is limited by constitution not the people.

I think that states have the right to enact legislations regulating the drinking age. I dont think those laws are necessary, but I agree state and local governments can enact them. I also think that if I own a store I could refuse to sell to anyone I want, even if they are 75, for any reason I want.

As for Rand, well, theres really no reason to get into that right now and its such a loaded debate. But Ill say that I think there are alot of things that the federal government does that make me want to scream; but if a state did them, I wouldnt really care. Perfect example is health care. I hate Federally sponsored health care programs, but am fine with states having them if that is what the people of that state want. This is all because people have an amount of choice when it comes to which state they live in while the federal government has a monopoly on national policies.

[AustinHoya03]

Jun 5, 2012 14:45:31 GMT -5 jgalt said:

Jun 5, 2012 14:31:27 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

Do you think I disagree with this? Here's what I've said.

1. Generally, regulatory powers (such as the power to set a minimum drinking age) rest with the states. The state cannot regulate areas which the federal government is prohibited from regulating.

2. Those areas (speech, arms, etc.) are often referred to as "enumerated rights."

3. So when thebin is SHOCKED, just ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED, that setting a minimum drinking age is not unconstitutional, it's fair for me to ask where the right for 12 year olds to drink alcohol is enumerated.

So, to be clear, I don't disagree with your "everyone has the right to do everything" position. Everyone has the "right" to drink, gamble, eat hallucinogenic mushrooms, buy liquor on Sundays, be naked in public, etc. I am not arguing with this. But the State has the authority to restrict those rights if it has a rational basis for doing so. Don't like it? Vote, contribute money to the Libertarian party, or run for office. But don't throw up your hands and say "I don't like it so it must be constitutional" every time a law that doesn't fit the Ayn Rand point of view is passed.

Do you disagree that the Constitution gives broad authority to the States and local governments to enact regulations such as a minimum drinking age?

What I posted wasnt direct at anyone in particular. I just wanted to put it out there that the federal government is limited by constitution not the people.

I think that states have the right to enact legislations regulating the drinking age. I dont think those laws are necessary, but I agree state and local governments can enact them. I also think that if I own a store I could refuse to sell to anyone I want, even if they are 75, for any reason I want.

As for Rand, well, theres really no reason to get into that right now and its such a loaded debate. But Ill say that I think there are alot of things that the federal government does that make me want to scream; but if a state did them, I wouldnt really care. Perfect example is health care. I hate Federally sponsored health care programs, but am fine with states having them if that is what the people of that state want. This is all because people have an amount of choice when it comes to which state they live in while the federal government has a monopoly on national policies.

We are not so different, you and I...

My apologies for the Ayn Rand comment; I figured a dude with the handle jgalt wouldn't mind.

[thebin]

Jun 5, 2012 14:35:12 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

Jun 5, 2012 5:07:24 GMT -5 thebin said:

The answers to all of these questions can be found in even a cursory reading of the post you at once agree with but find so aggravating: legal adulthood is where all lines should be drawn. That has the merit of being non-arbitrary and legally consistent. Alas I do not start with the premise as you seem to do that if the constitution doesn't mention it (like breathing, poker, sewing, etc.) that means I can be legally prevented from doing it even if it doesn't harm others. (Drinking only- not drunk driving) As to why the equal protection clause doesn't apply to infants driving....I'll leave that one to you to figure out. (hint: see first sentence. )

But legal adulthood IS somewhat arbitrary, isn't it? A quick Wikipedia search indicates it's 14 in Armenia and 21 in Azerbaijan. What are the non-arbitrary criteria you are using to settle on 18? And if you choose to share those with us, why don't I get to play your game of saying that I disagree with those criteria, so they are just wrong and we can't use them?

Also, if we're employing your rhetoric and view of the Equal Protection Clause, simply setting an age of majority could be viewed as an equal protection issue. "I want to set an age at which the government can't regulate your behavior" sound suspiciously similar to "I want to set an age at which the government can't prevent you from drinking alcohol."

Why on earth would I care what the age of adulthood is in Armenia? It is not arbitrary in the US- it is 18 in all states. Why 18? I don't know, but you should be able to process the idea that as long as the age is consistent for all manner of adult prerogatives (voting, guns, enlisting, drinking) it doesn't particularly matter if that age is 16 or 30. You can't be so obtuse as to keep missing that particularly point about the "arbitrary" age of 18. The only grossly arbitrary thing I find about it is that the states all succumbed to federal coercion to extend that age to 21 in one and only one area of adult rights in a manner in which I believe very probably violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

You don't think states can enact any laws they want outside of the enumerated ones and they are then automatically constitutional, do you? You know the rest of the document matters too right?

[jgalt]

Jun 5, 2012 14:58:31 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

Jun 5, 2012 14:45:31 GMT -5 jgalt said:

What I posted wasnt direct at anyone in particular. I just wanted to put it out there that the federal government is limited by constitution not the people.

I think that states have the right to enact legislations regulating the drinking age. I dont think those laws are necessary, but I agree state and local governments can enact them. I also think that if I own a store I could refuse to sell to anyone I want, even if they are 75, for any reason I want.

As for Rand, well, theres really no reason to get into that right now and its such a loaded debate. But Ill say that I think there are alot of things that the federal government does that make me want to scream; but if a state did them, I wouldnt really care. Perfect example is health care. I hate Federally sponsored health care programs, but am fine with states having them if that is what the people of that state want. This is all because people have an amount of choice when it comes to which state they live in while the federal government has a monopoly on national policies.

We are not so different, you and I...

My apologies for the Ayn Rand comment; I figured a dude with the handle jgalt wouldn't mind.

Haha, well I dont mind talking about her for hours on end, though this thread might not be the place for it. When I first started posting here I got into a huge argument related to privatizing the Metro system and its context with regards to Rand. Went on for pages and pages, and frankly im too lazy to do it again ;D

[AustinHoya03]

Jun 5, 2012 15:46:45 GMT -5 thebin said:

Jun 5, 2012 14:35:12 GMT -5 AustinHoya03 said:

But legal adulthood IS somewhat arbitrary, isn't it? A quick Wikipedia search indicates it's 14 in Armenia and 21 in Azerbaijan. What are the non-arbitrary criteria you are using to settle on 18? And if you choose to share those with us, why don't I get to play your game of saying that I disagree with those criteria, so they are just wrong and we can't use them?

Also, if we're employing your rhetoric and view of the Equal Protection Clause, simply setting an age of majority could be viewed as an equal protection issue. "I want to set an age at which the government can't regulate your behavior" sound suspiciously similar to "I want to set an age at which the government can't prevent you from drinking alcohol."

Why on earth would I care what the age of adulthood is in Armenia? It is not arbitrary in the US- it is 18 in all states. Why 18? I don't know, but you should be able to process the idea that as long as the age is consistent for all manner of adult prerogatives (voting, guns, enlisting, drinking) it doesn't particularly matter if that age is 16 or 30. You can't be so obtuse as to keep missing that particularly point about the "arbitrary" age of 18. The only grossly arbitrary thing I find about it is that the states all succumbed to federal coercion to extend that age to 21 in one and only one area of adult rights in a manner in which I believe very probably violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

You don't think states can enact any laws they want outside of the enumerated ones and they are then automatically constitutional, do you? You know the rest of the document matters too right?

Try again.

comptroller.defense.gov/fmr/07b/07b_appendix_h.pdf

As for your second point, I made a comment that YOU seem to think drinking alcohol is an enumerated right. I then explained why I used that phrase. Of course the rest of the Constitution matters.

ON EDIT: Also, is it really your position that if all 50 states agree to set the age of majority by drawing a number out of the hat, that number is non-arbitrary? That is the definition of arbitrary, regardless of whether the result is uniform. Similarly, it would be unconstitutional for all the states to simultaneously proclaim that "for no good reason, the age of majority is now 75." If the age of majority is totally unrelated to a state interest, uniformity doesn't mean dick.

I also forgot to mention above that some states have a different age of majority for purposes of criminal prosecution. So, if I can be automatically prosecuted as an adult for possessing alcohol if I'm 17 in Georgia and Texas, but the age of majority is 18, what should the drinking age be?

[thebin]

Surely he can't go this year?

www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/06/michael_bloomberg_s_hot_dog_eating_contests_if_soda_is_bad_why_is_competitive_eating_good_.html