National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984

Just because a corrupt court ruled against if does not mean it's actually Constitutional. For instance, look at the 21st Amendment. If you accept that you can put an age gap on it, you also accept that the Amendment itself can effectively be ignored, which would be done by setting the age absurdly high, like 80 years old or something.

Just because it's deemed illegal by a illegitimate court does not mean it's Constitutional.

Next you'll tell me Obamacare is Constitutional.

 

I believe the Founders gave a 4 boobies about what the Supreme Court ruled, which is why they created it and gave them the power to interpret what is legal and what is not within the context of the Constitution whenever there is not a clear ruling on it within the document.

 

The Supreme Court is given all the judicial power in the land under the Constitution so if they tell you its constitutional, it is. Period.

There is no more debate and nowhere higher to take your case. If they were to say that you have no right to own a gun then that would be constitutional no matter what you believe. If they said slavery was legal again it would be. That is the power that was given to them.

It is not possible for any decision they render to be unconstitutional whether you or I agree with it or not.

 

Yes, they did. But they never gave them the right to be activist judges. They have taken freedoms away and discriminated against legal adults.

 

Let's hope they don't take gun rights away, or people like you will just throw their hands up in the air.

 

Name one case where the Supreme Court played activist judges?

 

Most countries world wide have set the legal drinking age at 18. There are a few exceptions where no age limits apply, some have set the age limit to 16 and a few, including the USA is set at 21.

Also, countries with low age limits (16 for example), one can't buy alcohol until 18.

 

South Dakota v. Dole, the recent case over Obamacare. There are plenty more.

 

So when they give a decision you don't agree with you consider them practicing activism?

Your losing credibility. Name one case they shouldn't have taken on that they did only for the purpose of changing the direction of the country?

 

Why do I always get the impression that the term "activist" judge usually means "Judge who ruled in a way that I don't like".

 

That law killed rock'n roll.

The music was cut off from its natural market.

 

Because that's how most use it. An activist judge is one that goes far beyond the ruling of the particular case in front of him. This happens mostly in lower level courts and not usually the higher ones.

 

No, it was activism because they ignored the Amendments.

 

The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power to withhold rights from adults due to age. That was activism. Otherwise, you also agree that they have the power to set the drinking age to 100, which they could technically do if you use this as precedent. They also have set the precedent to take any rights away from adults based on age, which is also unconstitutional.

 

The Federal Law did not make the drinking age 21, it simply said if states did not set that drinking age they would lose a good chuck of highway funds. Any state could make the drinking age 18 anytime they choose to hell they could say if your ten you can drink or not have any drinking age at all.

 

No, they interpreted them the way they believed. That is their job. Had they decided the other way then someone on the other side would be making your accusation. If it was cut and dry then there would be no case sitting in front of them.

The fact is that the Constitution leaves a lot that can be interpreted one way or another and very few things are as cut and dry as you would like. This was done on purpose and the Supreme Court was created to monitor this throughout the life of our country. The founders knew that they couldn't predict what needs the country would face far into the future so to keep their document relevant they needed a Supreme Court that had the power to adjust the Constitution to the different situations our country was facing.

I hate their decision on Obamacare but I'm not going to say its unconstitutional because it isn't. They've ruled and its time to move on.

 

They're established that they can discriminate and take rights away from adults, and that they can force you to purchase healthcare. Both are huge shots to our freedoms.

 

Their decision had nothing to do with withholding rights due to age. That is a States right under the 10th amendment. All the Supreme Court said was that the Federal Government could withhold funds from States if they didn't set the age to 21.

So you are wrong on what they did.

 

Beck vs. CWA

 

Look at all the drinking ages until Reagan and Congress passed that bill. I'm positive just about none had it at 21. It wasn't an issue of what the states thought was the best drinking age, they were concerned about federal handouts.

So if you look at it closely, it was Reagan and Congress that made the drinking age 21.

 

The Supreme Court did not rule beyond the confines of that case. They simply settled the dispute before them.

I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned this one yet so I'll give it to you.

Marbury v. Madison where the Court established Judicial Review. That is a prime example of activism from the bench.

 

I like the idea of expanding freedoms as far and wide as possible, but I wouldn't be able to support this. Reason being is that you'd definitely see an increase in alcohol consumption amongst the 18-20 (and younger as well, due to more suppliers) group and all the horrors that can come along with it. The kids who really want to drink are going to anyways, so there really isn't any need to expand the availability of alcohol and the demographic who can freely consume it.

It's not like those younger than 21 are missing out on much, or really being deprived of something amazing. This isn't really tyranny we're talking about here. It's certainly not worth the increase in DUI's, fatal traffic accidents, alcohol fueled crime, addiction... etc. 21 is fine.

 

Why is it okay for certain adults to not have all of their freedoms? That sets a terrible precedent.

 

I was able to drink legally at 18...then Florida law changed to 21 when I was 19.
Finally got to legally imbibe the forbidden fruit...only to have it snatched away.

If "adulthood" can land one in state prison or the battlefield, it should also allow one to drink alcohol.

 

Every adult of all age should have the same rights. I'm not sure why it's anybodies business what a grown ass man or woman does with his or her body, especially when other adults of different ages can.