Forums | MacLife

Daniel wrote:

MacAddict4Life wrote:

Immutable... "unchanging over time or unable to be changed." Age is a measure of time, and but definition not immutable. Immutable is an absolute, a simple yes or no test, a 1 or 0 binary. Saying "immutable enough" by definition means it is, in fact, NOT immutable, and there is no relativity, if the answer isn't yes it is immutable, its no it isn't immutable.

That's like saying "kind of unique," either something is unique or not, there are not levels.

You are rambling.

And yet I don't hear you trying to defend the statement that age is "immutable enough."

MacAddict4Life wrote:

Daniel wrote:

MacAddict4Life wrote:

18-21 does not constitute a discrete and insular group, as they have the normal protections of the political process. Furthermore they are politically impotent, they are politically irrelevant. Impotence requires and inability to be politically relevant, which would indicate institutional barriers to political participation. This group is irrelevant based on their own lace of participation, not their lack of ability to do so.

This post is incomprehensible.

I agree, huge typo, sorry. Also added the world people to clear that up.

People 18-21 does not constitute a discrete and insular group (one of the 4 aforementioned requirements), as they have the normal protections of the political process. Furthermore they are NOT politically impotent, they are politically irrelevant. Impotence requires and inability to be politically relevant, which would indicate institutional barriers to political participation. This group is irrelevant based on their own lace of participation, not their lack of ability to do so.

Politically impotent?  A number of people, myself included, will not be able to vote for a president until they're 22.  I'd say that's an inability to be politically relevant due to institutional barriers to political participation, notably turning 18 four days after the 2004 election.  I've only had the opportunity to participate in a single federal election so far.

KHannon wrote:

So a big, ultimately inefficient, easily manipulatable bureaucracy is the answer.

Wow.

It's not like the DMV isn't already.

Depends on the 10-year-olds in question, is what I've been saying here.

Daniel wrote:

Depends on the 10-year-olds in question, is what I've been saying here.

Again....what sort of "psychological" testing will determine whether a 10-year-old can vote, drive, smoke cigarettes, model for pornography, or marry a 30-year-old?  Do you ever see society (of which everyone was once 10-years-old) believing that there are any circumstances by which a child that is 10 should be able to legally engage in such activity?

I assume adults would have to engage in all of these complex tests before doing anything, as well?

Daniel wrote:

As I said before, I don't have all the answers, but having them is not a prerequisite for pointing out wrong ones when I see them.

Right...the point isn't that your plan could offer a more precise determination, the point is that the position you're taking is completely unfeasible. 

The Constitution has never been viewed as demanding that every single individual be treated exactly the same in every single situation.  That would render many laws meaningless.

For example, a state law that prohibits performing dentistry without a license deprives laypersons of their constitutionally protected rights to make contracts freely and discriminates against those unable or unwilling to obtain a license. But a court would undoubtedly uphold the constitutionality of the law because the license requirement is a rational means of advancing the state's legitimate interests in public health and safety.

For a hundred years, the rational basis test has been part of the U.S. Supreme Court's review of cases that alleged denial of EQUAL PROTECTION of the laws. State and federal laws are filled with discriminations, or classifications, of various kinds. A law that would apply universally and treat all persons equally is virtually impossible to craft. Because all laws classify by imposing special burdens or by conferring special benefits on some people and not others, there are always persons who are displeased. For example, when a state limits the privilege to purchase and consume intoxicating liquor to persons twenty-one and older, it is engaging in AGE DISCRIMINATION. But a court would find this was not a denial of equal protection because the legislature has a legitimate interest in restricting the drinking age and the law advances that interest in a rational way.

The Court stated that "it is not within the scope of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT to withhold from States the power of classification." However, the Court continued, "it must appear" that a classification is "based upon some reasonable ground—some difference which bears a just and proper relation to the attempted classification—and is not a mere arbitrary selection."

Link.

In fact, you're not disputing that the government DOES have the ability to discriminate on such grounds, because you're suggesting that "testing" would be appropriate.  You might feel that such testing would have given you the upper hand as a minor, but it would most certainly act to "discriminate" against other individuals.  You simply want to trade one form of discrimination for another.

However, individualized testing on such grounds would be wholly impractical.  Thus, a rougher test is used that most certainly does track with mental competency and physical and mental maturity.

Daniel wrote:

I find it interesting that they utterly fail to elaborate upon this alleged "legitimate interest" and how any "advances" it somehow makes are in any way "rational."

....how about the effect of alcohol upon the developing brain and body?

Daniel wrote:

Vastly overstated and littered with propaganda by the neo-prohibitionist groups.

The determination of a "legitimate government interest" doesn't turn on Daniel's opinion, of course.



As I said before, you're simply willing to trade some form of discrimination for another.  However, it has been found time and again that government "discrimination"  that is limited only by the rational basis test does NOT have to be by the "least restrictive" means necessary.

Daniel wrote:

There is no rational basis for a drinking age of 21.

Well that's your view, but I don't believe that any reasonable reading of the Constitution bears that out (and in fact the original drafters apparently believed that it was appropriate to discriminate against those younger than 35 for simply holding a particular elected position). 

You may be unhappy with where the particular line is set, but as I've said such restrictions often represent a practical if albeit rough method of pursuing legitimate government interests (where complicated and individualized testing would be impossible to implement).

Yes I can.

Chickenhawk wrote:

While Dan may be absolutely smurf crazy when it comes to most of this thread, he is right on this one. Most of the rest of the world has a lower drinking age, and they have a lower incidence of drunk driving. Know why? Its our culture, dumbass! Americans put alcohol on such high a pedestal, that we do not know how to handle it.

...and I understand that view, but the very concept behind the term "rational basis" is that elected policymakers have a fairly wide latitude to make such decisions (thus making the difference between 18 and 21 to be negligible as far as 'equal protection' goes). 

I agree that the drinking age should probably be dropped to 18, though I don't believe it's a constitutional issue.

Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:

Yeah, us uptight countries should be more like Russia!

Or Algeria, or Cameroon, or Eritrea, or Ethiopia, or Ghana, or Keyna, or Mauritius, or Morocco, or Namibia, or Niger, or NIgeria, or South Africa, or Sierra Leone, or Tunisia, or Tanzania, or Uganda, or Zambia, or Zimbabwe, or Antigua, or Argentina, or the Bahamas, or Barbados, or Belize, or Bermuda, or Bolivia, or Brazil, or Canada-Alberta, or Canada-Manitoba, or Canada-Quebec, or Chile, or Colombia, or Costa Rica, or Cuba, or the Dominican Republic, or Equador, or Haiti, or Honduras, or Jamaica, or Mexico, or Nicaragua, or Panama, or Paraguay, or Peru, or Puerto Rico, or Uruguay, or Venezuela, or Azerbaijan, or Armenia, or Bahrain, or China, or Georgia, or Hong Kong, or portions of India, or Indonesia, or Iraq, or Israel, or Jordan, or Lebanon, or Malaysia, or Nepal, or Philippines, or Singapore, or Sri Lanka, or Thailand, or Turkey, or Vietnam, or Albania, or Austria, or Belarus, or Belgium, or Bulgaria, or Croatia, or Cyprus, or the Czech Republic, or Denmark, or Estonia, or France, or Germany, or Gibraltar, or Greece, or Hungary, or Ireland, or the Isle of Man, or Italy, or Jersey, or Lichtenstein, or Luxembourg, or Latvia, or Lithuania, or Macedonia, or Malta, or Moldova, or Montenegro, or the Netherlands, or Poland (don't forget!), or Portugal, or Romania, or Serbia, or Slovakia, or Slovenia, or Spain, or Switzerland, or Ukraine, or the United Kingdom, or Australia, or Fiji, or Guam, or Palau, or the Solomon Islands, or Vanuatu, or Tonga, or Tokelau, or New Zealand, or Samoa, or Papua New Guinea, or Kiribati, or American Samoa.

All of which have drinking ages 18 or lower.

Daniel wrote:

Yes I can.

Well?