<p>Also, it violates the 10th amednment. Just a thought. Maybe also the 14th.</p>
<p>I should have pointed out that of course in the case of abortion there is a supreme court decision that would not allow the government to do that because it would clearly be unconstitutional.</p>
<p>It’s not how I feel, it’s about what the government has a legal right to do. </p>
<p>BTW, Medicare doesn’t cover abortions unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest; or the woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed. </p>
<p>Sorry, but the Feds have can limit how the taxpayers money is going to be spent. If you don’t like it, throw the rascals out, which we will hopefully do come November.</p>
<p>“this type of federal law (changing the drinking age in all states to 21) normally would require a constitutional amendment (as did the prohibition laws in the 30’s).”</p>
<p>The constitutional landscape was very different in the 1920’s. Prior to FDR’s administration, the Supreme Court allowed very few laws regulating commerce, including some that we take for granted today, like the minimum wage. They were considered unconstitutional interference with the right to contract. Today, in contrast, we have a Supreme Court that recently affirmed the federal government’s right to control drug use even over a state’s objection. The main reason for tying the change in the drinking age to highway funding was political, not constitutional.</p>
<p>“I think it’s pretty clear that the Pro choicers would go ballistic if something like that ever happened.”</p>
<p>We’d go ballistic because we don’t like the policy, not because we’re passionately devoted to states’ rights. I am much more interested in the question of smart vs. stupid governance than in the question of federal vs. local control. There are lots of others like me.</p>
<p>oldfort, I didn’t know there was a minimum legal drinking age in Cancun. 
When we were there 2 years ago, at an all inclusive resort, I watched, from about 15 feet away, a kid who couldn’t have been more than 8 years old walk up to a pool side bar and ask for a frozen strawberry daiquiri. The bartender made him one with booze. The kid took a sip and got a big grin on his face as he walked away. The kid could literally just barely reach over the bar to take the drink, so I concluded that in Cancun the standard for legal alcohol consumption was height, not age. While in a “perverse” sort of way it was pretty funny, it really highlights the issue that I think is critical to this whole debate. Where are the parents in this process? It’s the parents role to teach responsible alcohol consumption to their kids instead of our government criminalizing and in draconian fashion penalizing kids for simply having a drink while “underage”. Just as I would never allow my kids at such tender years to go up to a bar at a resort to get ANY drink unattended, I don’t need the government meddling in my right as a parent to determine when and how my kids learn responsible drinking behavior or to determine how to consequence them for breaching my expectations. Unfortunately, there are many parents who are either irresponsible or just plain oblivious which creates opportunities for irrational government mandates that do little to really solve the problem but make many feel comfortable with neglecting their own parental responsibilities.</p>
<p>Here’s what was said about this law when it was put up for debate in 1984.
I’m not the only one that thinks it is unconstitutional:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is a huge problem with binge drinking in many a high school. (My local public HS included). Kids have even been busted bringing alcohol to the middle school to stock up for a future weekend party. Under this theory, the drinking age should be lowered to about 10.</p>
<p>We tried a lower drinking age before. In the 70’s, the drinking age was 18, and there was tons of binge drinking. We also had fake ids in high school so we could get into the local discos and dance. I don’t think lowering the drinking age will solve the problem. But I am happy to allow anyone who is in the military between the ages of 18 and 21 to legally drink. If anyone needs a drink, its those guys!!</p>
<p>Actually, it supports the idea of lowering the drinking age.
It shows that binge drinking occurs frequently when alcohol is illegal.<br>
In the case of high schools the answer is not necessarily to lower the drinking age below 18, although if you have travelled to Europe you might know that the drinking age in France, Spain, Italy, Germany and Austria is 16.
As far as I am aware, they seem to have less problems with binge drinking, and I am not aware of huge numbers of drunk driving deaths in Europe (compared to the US). The US is the only country in the world that I am aware of that has a uniform drinking age of 21.<br>
In that context the whole thing is really ridiculous. The rest of the world gets along just fine without this law. There are many serious social scientists that have studied the issue and agree that 21 is too old.</p>
<p>“Here’s what was said about this law when it was put up for debate in 1984.”</p>
<p>Wait a minute. First you said that “the feds did an end run by linking Federal transportation aid to the drinking age” because it would be unconstitutional for Congress to just set a standard drinking age for the whole country. I pointed out that the Supreme Court recently held in a similar case that controlling drugs is within federal power, which illustrates that the “end run” was not necessary constitutionally. It’s a political technique designed to make federal mandates more palatable to some conservatives.</p>
<p>Now you’re saying that the end run itself is unconstitutional.</p>
<p>You’re making an essentially political argument, while I’m making a legal one. You, like the speaker you quote in #206, are arguing that such laws OUGHT to be considered an unconstitutional check on states’ rights. But currently – and for the last 60 years or so – it’s been very clear as a matter of law that broad federal restrictions on trade are constitutional, and so is the “end run” political technique of tying federal funds to certain state policies.</p>
<p>1 down, 1 to go, there’s a huge difference between a law that make’s a “status offense” out of what would otherwise be lawful conduct based solely on the actor falling within the regulated group and a law that regulates the time, place and manner in which lawful conduct can be engaged. The minimum age drinking laws are “status” offenses based on the classification of age. That is qualitatively different than laws that say you can’t bring booze into schools, bars must close at 2 am, you can’t drive under the influence of alcohol and you can’t run drunkenly through the streets. The latter regulate the structure and order of our society by prohibiting conduct that is separate and distinct from drinking per se. The former is a failed attempt to legislate social policy. The reality is that setting the drinking age at 21 has not reduced binge drinking by high school students or even “social” drinking. By attempting to rely on an artificial distinction between 18 year olds as a class and 21 year olds, all that is accomplished is to criminalize a large number of 18, 19 and 20 year olds without addressing the actual behaviors that present a risk to themselves and to others. If high school and college students are going to take this seriously, the solution to the problem requires a broad based educational approach with well tailored regulation of inappropriate conduct, not simply turning those under 21 into “status offenders” which promotes a drinking subculture that is extremely resistant to listening to voices of reason.</p>
<p>Smart move on these college presidents. They know that any move that they do will alienate somebody. Therefore make the issue a ‘debate’ and let someone else or consenus take the burden. The Committee, provides the cover.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let me see, wording of the Constitution has not changed but the Supreme Court’s positions have changed dramatically. Just another example of judicial activism.</p>
<p>I think this is a good point that someone else had brought up earlier:</p>
<p>“If you are over 18 but under 21 and drink and get caught doing it, it’s NOT a juvenile offense. The conviction will show up on any future search for a criminal record. IMO, we have to either raise the age for juvenile offenses to 21 OR lower the drinking age. Giving someone a permanent adult criminal record for juvenile drinking strikes me as the worst of all possible worlds.”</p>
<p>I keep having to go back to the question–why, if one is allowed to die for his country, vote, be tried as an adult, etc…can they not legally purchase a drink?</p>
<p>I don’t think the age limit makes too much of a difference concerning drinking. If college students want to drink, they will drink, whether the law states 18 or 21 as legal. I think if the age was lowered there might be a rise in binge drinking and such for a couple of years, but once the thrill wears off it would fall back to the rate its been at for years—eventually, I think binge drinking would decline considering there would be a lack of need for “pregaming” and drinking a lot before you go out instead of just having a beer while at a party. </p>
<p>from what I understand, the drinking culture in Europe is different from that in the states because there is a relaxed atmosphere around it.</p>
<p>I think the best compromise would be some of the ideas other posters have talked about such as limited licenses</p>
<p>lol wow</p>
<p>diesel’s really passionate about his booze…more power to the people I guess.</p>
<p>As for this issue…a drinking age isn’t the solution. You could set the legal drinking age at -1 and people would still do the same stupid ****. After all, isn’t it a disregard for any shape or form of rules that makes this stuff so commonplace?</p>
<p>Oh and the whole “if I can serve my country and die in combat why can’t I drink” emo story is ridic. You’re not serving your country atm are you? Argument fail.</p>
<p>Either lower the drinking age or raise the voting age and age to serve in the armed forces.
And get rid of provisional licenses; that’s what a permit is for.</p>
<p>And MADD responds in their typical fashion. Not by presenting facts, but by presenting their usual “cooked” statistics that are vague and misleading.</p>
<p>Then they try to intimidate and bully the Presidents into removing their name from the list by listing their emails on line and flooding their mailboxes with demands that they do so. They succeeded in getting two from Georgia to withdraw, however 15 more signed on. There are now 123 college Presidents on the list.</p>
<p>Just as an example how MADD “cooks” their statistics…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now look at this closely. If there are 5000 teenagers killed and that’s a fifth of all fatalities, then there are 25,000 fatalities. If 43% were drunk, that’s .43x5000 or 2150. 2150/25,000 is only 8%. In addition it doesn’t say that all of those killed were drivers. Some of the fatalities are teenagers in the back seat. The statement when you first look at it makes you think that a fifth of all auto fatalities are caused by drunk teenagers, but that’s hardly the truth. It’s 8% or less on these stats (which are old), and that’s less than the total percentage of teenage drivers. In other words, teenagers have the same rate of fatalities from drunk driving as other age groups.</p>
<p>We’ve had this law since the 80’s. I believe the arguments to continue it are based on statistically INVALID measures and politics. There are too many variables that these studies ignore, like the improved safety of automobiles, and the increased education high school students receive which can easily account for ALL the differences since the law was passed.</p>
<p>The College Presidents should NOT back down.</p>
<p>I think it boils down to whether or not you believe in the concept of teaching students responsible drinking (vs. promoting abstinence). And whether 18-21 year olds should drink underground or out in the open (they will drink regardless of the law - we all know that). I think these two arguments tip the debate in favor of lowering the drinking age.
Does anybody here think that a college student who has a couple of beers at a party is doing a horrible thing? There’s a lot of talk about binge drinking here - but very little about the kids who are approaching drinking in a responsible manner. They’re out there. And the law makes no distinction. Public drunkeness is already a charge on the books so that works for the kids who are out of control. The students who are breaking the law due to being impaired - driving, destroying property, assault - they can face those charges. IMO, handing out citation to a 20 year old who had a beer or two is ridiculous - but the law allows it…and some campus police take advantage of this in the interest of “cracking down.”<br>
And if traffic deaths are the main argument, then let’s at least be consistent here and raise the driving age. There are plenty of non-alcohol related fatal accidents between the ages of 16 and 18. Is drinking a beer more dangerous than driving a car???</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And this is the crux of the problem right here. Anyone who ‘needs’ a drink has an issue. When we start justifying needing a drink, we send the wrong message to our children.</p>
<p>^You don’t need anything except food and shelter either. You don’t ‘need’ a computer. In a free society you don’t have to justify why you ‘need’ something.</p>
<p>But we don’t live in a free society…it’s like saying “I need slaves but don’t have to justify why.” Even more argument fail.</p>
<p>and since when was it necessary to “need a drink” to relax…or maybe I overestimated the average person</p>