Bush Daughters Free To Get Drunk

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
If the Supremes were consistent (which they are not), they would have to find such a ban would be constitutional. In Hardwick, they upheld the constitutionality of a law banning homosexual sex on the grounds that homosexual activity spreads AIDS more readily than hetrosexual activity. Your hypothetical presents a similar scenario.

Do you think that SCOTUS is right on that point? I sure don't. Maybe I'm biased, but with the recent knowledge that over half of all AIDS cases now are women, there's little justification for upholding the above notions. And if someone wants to be unsafe and put themselves at risk for HIV, shouldn't that be their choice? Laws designed to prevent reckless behavior that might harm others is one thing, but is there any moral justification for a law that prohibits people from a private activity that isn't necessarily or even probably harmful just to save a few stupid souls from their own idiocy?

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Sikander


Because they volunteered?

if the state protects them by not allowing them alcohol, because they are too imature, how the hell can it allow them to go and shoot people.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
14th Amendment.

Hypocrite.

[David Floyd]

Hypocrite.

Not really. The 14th was probably passed illegally, yet it is recognized as legal and that won't be changing. Furthermore, the 14th Amendment SHOULD be there, as I fail to see why a State should be able to violate the rights of people living within it any more than the federal government should.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Equal protection does not apply to drinking. Drinking is a priviledge, not a right.

[DanS]

Drinking is a right. Just not one proscribed by the Constitution.

[Anodyne]

Btw do people really get fined or jailed for underage drinking in the US

I mean 500 DOLLARS??! That's just... outrageous. And I find it quite weird that any institution would spend so much resources (I mean raising charges and all) on such a normal thing as an underage drinking.

And alcohol awareness classes??

Now, this is just pathetic.

Do you get a criminal record, too, for underage drinking or "crimes" like that?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Do you think that SCOTUS is right on that point?

Moi?? I rarely agree with the Supremes on anything! The question was the constitutionality of the law; the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says; and I was just relating the warped reasoning of the Court.

Originally posted by Anodyne
Do you get a criminal record, too, for underage drinking or "crimes" like that?

You get a juvenile record. But you are not "convicted" of a "crime." You're found to be (IIRC) "a ward of the state" or a "deliquent" or some such. Plus, when you get to be an adult, your juvie record is sealed.

[David Floyd]

Equal protection does not apply to drinking. Drinking is a priviledge, not a right.

Fine, then by that argument, being able to eat is a privilege too. I don't see the right to eat food anywhere in the Constitution.

Or any number of other things.

Being able to drink is most certainly a right.

[Faboba]

Originally posted by Anodyne

Now, this is just pathetic.

Drinking's bad, m'kay?
Beer is bad. Whiskey is bad. Absinthe is bad, m'kay?
Uh... Vodka's bad. Cognac is bad. Lager is bad, m'kay?
Mixers are bad... alco-pops are very, very bad.
American beer is very, very, very bad. M'kay?

So in conclusion... drinking's bad, m'kay? M'kay.

[Skanky Burns]

But bourbon is good.

[Faboba]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
But bourbon is good.

One of the few drinks as yet largely unbastardised by the modern world.

But who knows... they're already taking the worm out of absinthe and mass producing spanish 'wine'. I had a can of some Irish beer the other day which... rather than being full of body like you would expect was in fact 100% dregs. All those in the six-pack were the same. It's incredible that people can get away with such **** and more incredible that people would be willing to buy them....

[Imran Siddiqui]

Fine, then by that argument, being able to eat is a privilege too. I don't see the right to eat food anywhere in the Constitution.

No, it isn't, that is why the FDA can ban foods that it thinks are dangerous. It couldn't do that if eating food was a right.

And if eating food is a right, I guess welfare is a right too, because the poor are just exercising their God-given right to eat .

Sorry David, you are wrong... again.

[Asher]

Not to nitpick but doesn't the FDA ban the selling and distribution of foods, not eating of foods?

[David Floyd]

No, it isn't, that is why the FDA can ban foods that it thinks are dangerous. It couldn't do that if eating food was a right.

Answered by Asher. The FDA can't stop me from eating anything.

And if eating food is a right, I guess welfare is a right too, because the poor are just exercising their God-given right to eat

Sorry, eating food is a right if you have it or can buy it. You don't have the right to food if you can't afford it - I would think that is obvious, given my perspective. Do try to interpret things in the way I mean them, rather than trying to nitpick, please.