[spatch]

A person must run for senate in the state they hold residence. George Bush couldnt run for senate in Alaska. Why? This prevents senators from passing bills that dont affect them. He could pass laws that increase that income tax in Alaska and never have to pay them. The important part here is, a senator can not pass a law on other adults that they do not have to live under as well.

"According to Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, a senator must be 30 years of age, a citizen of the United States for 9 years, and must reside in the state he or she represents at the time of election."

Therefor, why can a 35 year old senator set the drinking age to 21?

I dont believe it to be a violation of the constitution when the smoking age is set at 18, as those under 18 are not adults. However, if i rob a bank I will go to an adult prison, and if there is a draft I am elligable. 18 year old's are adults.

However, a 35 year old man passing laws banning an 18 year old man from a substance that the 35 year old man can attain is like a Texas man telling Alaskan's that they must pay more income tax that the Texas man doesnt have to pay.


... or like the British driving up taxes on tea...

[B5150]

Originally Posted by spatch

under 18 are not adults.

18 year old's are adults.

an 18 year old man

I can't make any sense of your logic in this matter that you posted but don't you at least see the irony of an eight-teen year old being considered and adult. Eighteen year olds are still teen-agers.

[anabolicrhino]

Originally Posted by spatch

A person must run for senate in the state they hold residence. George Bush couldnt run for senate in Alaska. Why? This prevents senators from passing bills that dont affect them. He could pass laws that increase that income tax in Alaska and never have to pay them. The important part here is, a senator can not pass a law on other adults that they do not have to live under as well.

"According to Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, a senator must be 30 years of age, a citizen of the United States for 9 years, and must reside in the state he or she represents at the time of election."

Therefor, why can a 35 year old senator set the drinking age to 21?

Laws are not designed to be fair. There are designed to serve a practical purpose, usually to control the population and to keep people from being a hazard to themselves and other citizens.

Now, I have a theory...an 18 yearold is basically half the age of the 35 year old senator. The senator remembers back when he was 18 and thinks "...wow, dude I was like totally clueless"

Kind of like comparing your thought patterns at 9 years old to the way you think at 18...Oh and they have make some kind of advantage to getting older!!!(haha)

[jminis]

I never understood 21 either but there not going to change it. Most countries are 18 or the age requirement is non existent. Not fair right? Well keep in mind how many 18 year olds drive here as compared to those countries. Its not fair but what really is.

[spatch]

Originally Posted by B5150

I can't make any sense of your logic in this matter that you posted but don't you at least see the irony of an eight-teen year old being considered and adult. Eighteen year olds are still teen-agers.

If i'm still a "teenager" then I shouldnt be elligable for the draft, nor should I go to an adult prison. Dont make me have the burdens of an adult with out the rights.

Originally Posted by anabolicrhino

Laws are not designed to be fair.

The constitution is designed to be fair. Its sad that with their signature, senators and the likes can change a document that hundreds of thousands of men have fought to protect since 1776.

[size]

If enough 18-20 were politically motivated on this topic then there could be some more interesting discussion about the legalities and properness of it since the individuals who fall into the category are adults(via voting rights and military etc). However, people of this age tend not to use their votes or capabilities to the fullest often due to immaturity and short-sightedness.

[spatch]

Originally Posted by size

If enough 18-20 were politically motivated on this topic then there could be some more interesting discussion about the legalities and properness of it since the individuals who fall into the category are adults(via voting rights and militray etc). However, people of this age tend not to use their votes or capabilities to the fullest often due to immaturity and short-sightedness.

Exactly. I dont get why anyone for any reason wouldn't vote.

[Frank Costanza]

The constitution is designed to be fair. Its sad that with their signature, senators and the likes can change a document that hundreds of thousands of men have fought to protect since 1776.

You can't lock yourself into a document based on 18th century moral and principles. You have to amend it as societies values and sense of fairness change. If we didn't, slaves would be legal.

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were certainly NOT fair to today's' standards.

So you either have one man do it, or a governing body. I choose the governing body.


And its 1787

[xtraflossy]

Originally Posted by jminis

I never understood 21 either but there not going to change it. Most countries are 18 or the age requirement is non existent. Not fair right? Well keep in mind how many 18 year olds drive here as compared to those countries. Its not fair but what really is.

The drinking age was not always 21.
Just like many reccreational drugs were not always illegal.

I beleive that the drinking age is established by each individual state... BUT:
The Federal govt. offered t opay transportation costs and maintenence for the roads (innerstates I beleive) but only if that state agreed t osetting the age restriction to 21.
Since NOT having an innerstate back then REALLY hurt the States export/import and tourissm, and the fact that now Railroads were no longer monoplolizing that aspect of the industry most states signed up for it right away.
The few that didn't obviously did.
Now, wether or not this is STILL why the drinking age is 21, I do not know, but after every state signs up for that, why not make it a federal thing ya know :P

[spatch]

Originally Posted by xtraflossy

The drinking age was not always 21.

Its not about the drinking age. Its those who are 18-21 having the full burdens of adults w/o the full rights of adults.

[anabolicrhino]

Originally Posted by spatch

Its not about the drinking age. Its those who are 18-21 having the full burdens of adults w/o the full rights of adults.

Once you get drafted you can drink at the px

[B5150]

Originally Posted by spatch

Its not about the drinking age. Its those who are 18-21 having the full burdens of adults w/o the full rights of adults.

I'll trade you my "full burdens" for your "deprivation of rights" and lets see who fairs better.

[spatch]

Originally Posted by B5150

I'll trade you my "full burdens" for your "deprivation of rights" and lets see who fairs better.

Whats one legal burden that you have that we dont?

[B5150]

I was not referring to legal burdens. When you are forty something raising a family, with job (in)security, medical insurance premiums, mortgage payments, braces payments, college tuition payments, day care payments, auto insurance payments, property tax payments, etc., the difference between the rights you have at 18 and 21 will be pretty insignificant to you.

I get your point. I would prefer that we not draft our 18 yo children to fight a political agenda around the world. I would also prefer that our children not drink at 18. An 18 yo that commits a crime can go to whatever correctional facility he wants as long as when he is convicted he suffers the hardship consequences commensurate his actions.

[spatch]

Originally Posted by B5150

I was not referring to legal burdens. When you are forty something raising a family, with job (in)security, medical insurance premiums, mortgage payments, braces payments, college tuition payments, day care payments, auto insurance payments, property tax payments, etc., the difference between the rights you have at 18 and 21 will be pretty insignificant to you.

I get your point. I would prefer that we not draft our 18 yo children to fight a political agenda around the world. I would also prefer that our children not drink at 18. An 18 yo that commits a crime can go to whatever correctional facility he wants as long as when he is convicted he suffers the hardship consequences commensurate his actions.

Like every other adult I talk to this about, your missing my point.

Its not about my right to drink, nor is it about how much harder it is to be an adult than it is to be 18. Nor is it about a draft. Nor is it about drunk driving fatalites. Its about straight up violation of rights.

The point is, senators pass laws that in no way can ever effect them. It would be the same if no one with brown eyes could run for senate, and a green/blue eyed senate passed a bill to make brown eyed people pay double the taxes that green/blue people have to.

[DmitryWI]

Originally Posted by spatch

Its not about the drinking age. Its those who are 18-21 having the full burdens of adults w/o the full rights of adults.

In a few years you'll grow up and be able to "enjoy" your full rights. So get over yourself...