<p>^^^
Well…owning firearms is a constitutional right; the buying of alcohol is not. As for voting/joining the military…I don’t think that is a good argument for lowering the drinking age across the board; a lot of people do not vote and do not join the military…sure if you are in the military, you should be allowed to drink. But saying that some 18 year olds are fighting/dying for their country or that 18 year olds have the <em>potential</em> to do so is not, to me, a good reason for giving ALL 18 year olds that ability.</p>
<p>The rest of your post makes an interesting point; personally, in this day and age, I believe that the age of adulthood should be raised rather than the drinking age simply lowered with no other changes. Of course, we then have to deal with the military draft, etc.</p>
<p>^^
Do you think the amendment repealing prohibition is a quasi endorsement of a constitutional right to have access to alcohol. I think repealing an amendment prohibiting alcohol is essentially saying it’s unconstitutional to ban alcohol. That’s just a thought.
I don’t think the draft will come back. I think a draft violates the due process clause of the 5th amendment, even though the draft was upheld as consitutional in 1918, I think rights under the 5th amendment have expanded since.</p>
<p>^^^
I’m pretty sure the main reasons they repealed prohibition was so the government could tax alcohol, to regenerate the alcohol industry, and to deal with the black market. I don’t think that the SC ever declared the 18th amendment unconstitutional. Also, the 21st amendment, which repeals the 18th, explicitly gives States the right to restrict or ban the purchase or sale of alcohol.</p>
<p>I’m talking about the gov, not states. Constitutional rights deal with the fed gov, except in rare cases in which they address states. Although the SC has argued that the 14th incorporates the BOR to states, amendments typically deal with the gov- aka the fed gov. I don’t think intention matters. I think repealing something indicates it’s unconstitutional- not fit for the constitution. I’m not referring to the courts. The SC isn’t the only part of gov that can claim something as unconstitutional, and the other 2 branches are in no way forced to carry out SC decisions. If an amendment is incorporated, it almost always extends a right. Therefore repealing it would mean a right is no longer a right. The 18th restricted a right, so repealing it meant restricting a right is not a right. If that makes sense.</p>
<p>sithis, I am not “arguing” anything. I am trying to have a discussion. Jeeze, no need to get snippy or try to start an argument.
Believe it or not, I have read the constitution quite a few times and have taken a couple Con law classes. If you’ve read the complete constitution, it rarely mentions the states. It’s a document involving federal powers, not state ones. I’m not going to give a rant on the constitution. I don’t get how quoting the 18th and 21st “proves” anything. Most amendments deal with the fed, not states. I never said the 18th or 21st doesn’t involve states, did I?
Most amendments DON’T mention the states. That was my point. As in, they refer to powers forbidden by the fed. And, again, the SC is NOT the only branch that can render an act unconstitutional. Congress passes amendments granting or restricting rights, not the courts. That’s all basic stuff. It makes complete sense. Sure, the 18th and 21st may mention the states, but most amendments don’t. That was my point, I thought it was outlined.
Drinking isn’t a big deal for me, I can drink anywhere, anytime. I can go to clubs and bars, but I still enjoy drinking, and I still go out 3-5 times a week, as much or even more than when I couldn’t go to bars and such. I may even go out a bit more now.</p>
<p>Well, I didn’t mean argument as in “angry, heated debate” I meant argument as in “a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences.” </p>
<p>I don’t really care about what % of the constitution involves the federal government and what % involves the state governments. You were suggesting that the constitution being mainly federally-based somehow renders the actual verbiage of the amendments irrelevant. I never said anything about the SC passing laws. By “your post doesn’t make sense,” I meant that the general gist of your argument made no sense, not the statements about government functions, etc.</p>
<p>That’s because I am not making an argument. I am just sharing thoughts. I do think repealing an amendment signifies that an act can not be banned or a right is not really a right. It’s Congress’ way of extending or restricting rights to either overturn the court or to create something new. I don’t think prohibition could be upheld under the necessary and proper clause today, and may actually violate the due process clause of the 5th. Saying that banning alcohol is not constitutionally permissable to me signifies that members of Congress believed that using alcohol was to some degree a right, or at least an act the feds can’t ban absolutely. States can do what they want, but the fed bribes them to make the age 21. If states weren’t so financially dependent on the fed we could drink at 18 or 19.</p>
<p>Wow, I am not saying use was banned or that states can’t ban alcohol consumption.
I am really trying to be clear, but I think you are missing my point by focusing on a sentence or two, and stating a fact. I am attempting to have a discussion here, not a fact finding expedition. I am trying to say that I think that Congress’ decision to repeal prohibition to me implies that they believe prohibition is unconstitutional.
Drug use isn’t banned but you can be arrested for being under the influence.</p>
<p>A discussion consisting of vague assertations in place of concrete, specific statements is pointless. I do not believe that “Congress’ decision to repeal prohibition to me implies that they believe prohibition is unconstitutional.” My contention is that it was primarily motivated by need for more tax income, an economic improvement, and a desire to mitigate organized crime. I do not believe that constitutional rights factored into it at all.</p>
<p>First off, an amendment cannot be unconstitutional by definition as it is a change to the constitution.</p>
<p>Second, prohibition was not unconstitutional; it was perfectly constitutional(though unwise and evil).</p>
<p>Third, the 21st amendment did not give states the power to prohibit alcohol consumption and transportation, they already had that power implied by the tenth amendment. It merely stated what it stated so there would be no confusion of whether repeal of the 18th amendment would deny the power to do so to the states.</p>
<p>Fourth, the 18th did not extend the powers of the State and Federal to regulate alcohol. States already had the power not right, (governments only have powers, not rights), to regulate or prohibit the trade and consumption of alcohol. What the 18th amendment did was to make the production, transport, and sale of alcohol a crime against the constitution, equivalent to the enslavement of a person.</p>
<p>Fifth, repeal of prohibition was not a recognition of any right to do anything. It was a recognition of the stupidity of what led to prohibition in the first place.</p>
<p>Sixth, if you carefully look at the wording of several amendments, they recognize that the right preexists the amendment and that the government is prohibited from violating such rights. Very few amendments are worded in such a way that they create a right.</p>
<p>
If you look at cases were someone is abused, one person has enough power to make the other do something and submit to their will. In the case of a parent child relationship, while not abuse, the parent still holds considerable power of their child(ren). </p>
<p>
While teenagers do want freedom and no responsibility, it is important to give them both.</p>