PDA

View Full Version : Re: Drinking age. Should Paul announce he will lower it?




terlinguatx
10-19-2007, 03:39 PM
Capture an even larger portion of the youth vote. The reason it's 21 is because of unconstitutional blackmail by the Federal Government. The withhold highway funds if states don't comply. Paul could even announce that he just wants to lower it to 20. This would still create a lot of buzz but wouldn't be too controversial.

noxagol
10-19-2007, 03:42 PM
No, a lot of people probably think this is a good idea. Though, it probably wouldn't hurt to mention to people that he would probably end the blackmail and let states decided again.

JosephTheLibertarian
10-19-2007, 03:43 PM
We should let the states decide :) at the state level.... NO DRINKING AGE!! :D

Van Damme
10-19-2007, 03:49 PM
I like the idea of eliminating the drinking age but I don't know how helpful that would be to the campaign.

The drinking age is a bit preposterous IMO. All it does is drive "underage" drinking underground out of the view of parents.

Tidewise
10-19-2007, 10:41 PM
Re: Drinking age. Should Paul announce he will lower it?
Of course not! This is a state issue.
"This balance between the National and State governments ought to be dwelt on with peculiar attention, as it is of the utmost importance. It forms a double security to the people. If one encroaches on their rights they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by a certain rivalship, which will ever subsist between them."

-- Alexander Hamilton (speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, 17 June 1788)
Reference: The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Henry Cabot Lodge, ed., vol. 2 (28)

Shellshock1918
10-19-2007, 10:56 PM
No, a lot of people probably think this is a good idea. Though, it probably wouldn't hurt to mention to people that he would probably end the blackmail and let states decided again.

The federal government is allowed to regulate alcohol under the interstate commerce clause so allowing the states to do it is rather tricky.

goRPaul
10-20-2007, 12:13 AM
This would definately help the campaign, but more so in the general election. This announcement won't convince a significant enough block of young voters to vote in the primary. We have bigger fish to fry, like convincing likely primary voters that Ron is the only true conservative.

kylejack
10-20-2007, 12:21 AM
The federal government is allowed to regulate alcohol under the interstate commerce clause so allowing the states to do it is rather tricky.

Regulating alcohol was not the purpose of the interstate commerce clause. The interstate commerce clause was intended to ensure free trade between the states, not federal prohibition of trade.

McDermit
10-20-2007, 12:45 AM
yeah, we really need MADD protesting his candidacy.

trispear
10-20-2007, 03:48 AM
Yeah, you know how this sounds to older people who already are well past the drinking age and therefore don't care at all about the drinking age beyond it making them less safe perceptively and worry about their high school and college aged kids?

Terrible idea. Ron Paul should simply say he leaves it up to the states and leave it at that. He can't modify the drinking age anyway - just remove the federal mandate. All the laws on the books about drinking age are state laws (acknowledged that they were put their under federal "guidance" but state laws none the less).

For campaign purposes, lets not oversell the youth vote and undersell the more mature crowd who historically come to the polls.

jgmaynard
10-20-2007, 09:25 AM
Obviously, he can't say he'd lower it because that would be unconstiutional.

However, he COULD get even more youth followerrs by saying he'd end the Fed highway money blackmail and leave it up to the states to decide.

JM

Kregener
10-20-2007, 09:28 AM
Then each the state should determine at what age a person can drive, serve in the military and vote too, right?

Lets simplify it. You can drink when you can be given a rifle and possibly shoot someone in defense of your nation.

werdd
10-20-2007, 09:48 AM
he should repeal the bill where states wont get funding unless their drinking age is at 21.

Corydoras
10-20-2007, 09:59 AM
It's not going to gain votes. Underage people drink anyway. They don't really care if what they're doing is legal or not.

Triton
10-20-2007, 10:00 AM
Capture an even larger portion of the youth vote. The reason it's 21 is because of unconstitutional blackmail by the Federal Government. The withhold highway funds if states don't comply. Paul could even announce that he just wants to lower it to 20. This would still create a lot of buzz but wouldn't be too controversial.No, he should announce that he will end the Federal government's unconstitutional involvement in the issue, since it belongs with the states.

torchbearer
10-20-2007, 10:07 AM
I think he should announce the federal government will no longer regulate drinking ages since it does not have the power to do so

beerista
10-20-2007, 04:01 PM
The federal government is allowed to regulate alcohol under the interstate commerce clause so allowing the states to do it is rather tricky.
Sadly, this sort of hits on the crux of the issue. A fair reading of the Interstate Commerce clause would imply that the feds have the authority to regulate the sale of alcohol that originates in one state and is purchased in another. This says nothing of alcohol or any other chemical that originates in the same state as it is purchased or the consumption of a chemical that is not offered for sale at all.
Of course a better understanding of the feds' lack of authority to regulate chemical consumption was exhibited when Prohibition was proposed. Misguided, yes, but at least they realized back then that such a power did not exist under the Constitution as written and that an Amendment would be required to allow for their misguided policy to have the force of law. Now, with a federal war on drugs, it is apparent that the feds have usurped the authority to prohibit consumption, so why they had to backdoor partial prohibition (which is, of course, what a drinking age is) with federal highway money blackmail is beyond me.
This is a state issue down to the ground as was as much as admitted by the feds by the use of this tactic in the first place; there is no national drinking age per se, only a manipulated "consensus" of state drinking ages (a de facto national drinking age, agreed). The end of federal highway funds blackmail should be obviously implied by Paul's federalist platform.

RP4ME
10-20-2007, 05:04 PM
i think this a pet issue and non essential to his election so best not to touch it