Drinking age limit discriminatory?

[Sovereign110]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Wisconsin

Not sure if this is the right forum, but I'm helping do a presentation in favor of lowering the drinking age (probably to 18) in the United States. I've read up on some legal issues that are being debated and I just want to clarify them here, to make sure I'm understanding them right. I'm not looking for an agreement/disagreement, just whether or not these actually have some truth to them.

Some people argue that the drinking age violates due process. As I understand it, since an 18+ year old is considered an adult for all intents and purposes, depriving them of legally obtaining/using alcohol is deprivation of property.

Also, I've read that some critics argue that it also violates the equal protection clause. Since the 18-20 year old demographic seems to be uniquely targeted for alcohol laws, they are not being afforded equal protection. In the same way that you can't create laws about racial minorities simply based on the fact that they're racial minorities, it shouldn't be allowed to create laws on the 18-20-year old demographic (who are adults, remember) seemingly just because they aren't 21 yet.

Am I understanding these clauses right? Or are these (or one of them) simply wrong? Thanks in advance

 

[HomeGuru]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Wisconsin

Not sure if this is the right forum, but I'm helping do a presentation in favor of lowering the drinking age (probably to 18) in the United States. I've read up on some legal issues that are being debated and I just want to clarify them here, to make sure I'm understanding them right. I'm not looking for an agreement/disagreement, just whether or not these actually have some truth to them.

Some people argue that the drinking age violates due process. As I understand it, since an 18+ year old is considered an adult for all intents and purposes, depriving them of legally obtaining/using alcohol is deprivation of property.

Also, I've read that some critics argue that it also violates the equal protection clause. Since the 18-20 year old demographic seems to be uniquely targeted for alcohol laws, they are not being afforded equal protection. In the same way that you can't create laws about racial minorities simply based on the fact that they're racial minorities, it shouldn't be allowed to create laws on the 18-20-year old demographic (who are adults, remember) seemingly just because they aren't 21 yet.

Am I understanding these clauses right? Or are these (or one of them) simply wrong? Thanks in advance

**A: are you in high school, college or?

 

[Sovereign110]

College, why?

 

[Proserpina]

College, why?

Because at that level you're expected to do your own homework

 

[Antigone*]

Because at that level you're expected to do your own homework

So does that mean you won't help me with mine I think I'm going to cry now!!!

 

[Sovereign110]

Because at that level you're expected to do your own homework

What do you mean? Everything I posted is the result of my "homework." I'm not in law school; I can't wrap my head around legal issues so easily. I only posted here for a simple "yes" or "no" as to whether my understanding is sound or not. What, do you think these are homework questions or something?

 

[Antigone*]

What do you mean? Everything I posted is the result of my "homework." I'm not in law school; I can't wrap my head around legal issues so easily. I only posted here for a simple "yes" or "no" as to whether my understanding is sound or not. What, do you think these are homework questions or something?

Simple answer: No & Yes

 

[racer72]

I copied this off a website years ago and it comes in handy in these forums a couple times a year.


"Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (U.S. Const., 14th Amendment)


The analysis has nothing to do with "rights" vs. "privileges".

Basically states are free to restrict your right to liberty by law (via the state's broad "police power") unless the law infringes upon your "fundamental rights" (e.g., right to vote, etc.) Drinking is not a fundamental right. A law restricting something less that a fundamental right (e.g., drinking) need only be "rationally related to a legitimate government interest" to be constitutional. Here, the legitimate government interest is to protect youth from the so-called evils of alcohol. The age restriction is rationally related to that end. Therefore, the law limiting the age of drinkers does not violate the "due process clause" and is constitutional.

What about discrimination under the "equal protection clause"? Well, unless the law discriminates against a "suspect class" of people, the above analysis is the same. A "suspect class" of people is basically those people who have been getting a raw deal for years and years (e.g., minority races, religions, and people from certain nations, etc.) Discrimination on the basis of age does not affect a suspect class (minors). Since the law barring minors from drinking doesn't affect a suspect class, and it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest, that law doesn't violate the equal protection clause either. The analysis would be totally different if the law prohibited Argentinean-Americans or Muslims from drinking, or what-have-you.

 

[tranquility]

It is not a deprivation of property as ANY regulation regarding alcohol or real estate or any "thing" would be the same.

Is an 18 year old an "adult" per the constitution? What does the 26th amendment say? How do we determine the age of majority? What does that mean?

As to equal protection, race is a protected category. What are the other protected categories? What is the Constitutional requirements for a law which substantially affects a protected category? What is the Constitutional requirement for a law which affects a category of people which is not given special protections?

 

[Proserpina]

Perhaps OP would also like to consider the age requirements of various government positions...

(you know, like the President?)

 

[TheGeekess]

And 18 is NOT the age of Majority in all states.

 

[cbg]

The poster should also consider that in some other forms of Federal law, illegal discrimination begins at 40. If you are under 40, then by legal definition it is not age discrimination.

 

[Proserpina]

The poster should also consider that in some other forms of Federal law, illegal discrimination begins at 40. If you are under 40, then by legal definition it is not age discrimination.

I do not believe this is what OP is wanting to hear

 

[cbg]

I'm sure it's not. But it's a precedent that the opposition is likely to raise; he may as well be prepared.

 

[HomeGuru]

I say raise the drinking age to 40.