In another thread the subject of drinking in Utah was brought up. How can the state of Utah abridge a person’s to drink alcohol? I was able to buy alcohol there if I had it with a meal; but I could only have one “drink” (as defined by law) at a time. Damned weak margarita, and a waitress wouldn’t give me a fresh beer when I still had two inches of beer in my first glass.
The First Ammendment says that congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of a religion. Utah is predominantly governed by Mormons. But then there is the 14th Ammendment:
First, passing a law that seems to be based on their religion seems to violate the First Ammendment, which I think would apply to the state because the 14th Ammendment guaranties freedom from the establishment of religion to all U.S. citizens regardless of what state they’re in.
Second, since alcohol consumption is legal and accepted for U.S. citizens, then religion aside, people in Utah should be able to drink without restrictions that are greater than those the federal government imposes.
Since a patron is required to buy a meal before he or she can purchase an alcoholic beverage, and since you must purchase a “membership to a private club” (virtually a license to consume alcohol required by the state) doesn’t this violate the 14th Ammendment?
So the General Question is: How can Utah force people to accept part of the Mormon religion against the First Ammendment (as applied to the state by the 14th), and deprive people of, or force people pay for, the right to buy alcohol (which I believe violates the provision of the 14th Ammendment)?
In other words, when Prohibition was repealed, alcohol laws were explicitly returned to state (or local) control. There are still “dry” counties in a few places.
As far as the Establishment clause side of it…a law that doesn’t prefer one religious sect over another is valid if it has a secular purpose, has a primary effect which neither advances or inhibits religion, and avoids excessive government entanglement with religion, three factors known as the “Lemon Test” from the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman (SCOTUS loves tests with catchy names). They may be motivated by religious beliefs in passing anti-alcohol laws, but they can probably point to enough secular purpose in doing so to pass the test.
Throughout the south there are many “dry” counties where you can’t get alcohol at all. In other places beer can be sold and spirits are disallowed. Utah does have some odd laws, but by far not the strictest laws.
So could a state pass a law that you can’t consume fatty food? After all, it’s unhealthy and they could make a case that they would be saving lives…:rolleyes:
Most dry laws forbid the sale of alcohol in the area, and not the consumption. That’d be like saying that no stores could sell lard, but you can still cook with it.
These aren’t uncommon laws, either. The suburb that I live in does not sell alcohol except via restaurants (and used to not sell through them either). In Minnesota (at least when I lived there in the mid-'90s, you can’t buy alcohol on Sundays in a store. Where I live now, you can’t buy alcohol before noon on Sunday. In Wisconsin (or at least in the county where I grew up), you can’t buy alcohol in a store after 9 pm.
That’s as absurd as saying that, because one of the Ten Commandments of the Judeo-Christian Old Testament forbids murder, that state laws forbidding murder are an establishment of religion. No, restrictions on alcohol sales are not an establishment of religion.
No, you don’t understand how federalism works. Power to define and punish crimes remains with the states, except for a few areas where the Constitution specifically grants power to the federal government. There are a million state laws on every conceivable topic that punish things that aren’t illegal under federal law.
Some grossly arbitrary state laws have been stricken as violations of the “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment. Alcohol restrictions would not be among them. Alcohol is a narcotic, and has long been subject to regulation by both state and federal governments. All states regulate its possession, distribution, and sale to some degree. Utah’s restrictions just happen to be among the strictest. But you won’t win in arguing that they’re so strict as to violate the 14th Amendment.
A law against selling or consuming fatty food, on the other hand, would be breaking new ground, and would undoubtedly be challenged. We await developments.
When I lived in Dallas, Tx. during the 1980s, entire sections of town were “dry”. It was weird, because a person would have to go north of the Trinity river in order to buy a six pack or a bottle of wine. Of course, there were private clubs in the prohibited areas that allowed it’s members to drink.
Utah certainly has more strict liquor laws than any other state I am aware of. Usually, you will here people compare Utah laws with dry counties in other states, but the comparison doesn’t work for me because there are just as many dry areas in Utah as well. It’s the state laws that are of concern. And, what would you expect when the entire state liquor commission has been made up of appointed, non-drinking, mormons until a few years ago when one tea-toteling drinker was appointed to join the group. (Similar to our “porn czar” who is a female, 42-year old, mormon, self-proclaimed virgin!)
Recently, the constitutionality of Utah laws governing alcohol and private club advertising have been successfully challenged. Restaurants can now advertise that they serve alcohol. Previously, a restaurant that served alcohol had to hide any indication that they housed the stuff. Liquor could not be stored on shelves, no signs or placards at tables, etc. The server could not even offer a drink or indicate that the restaurant served alcohol until the customer brought the subject up. This made for a lot of awkward moments with out-of-state visitors that didn’t know the rules.
There are many strange and confusing liquor laws here that I don’t have time to go into now. On the positive side, there have been noticeable improvements in the ten years I have lived in this pretty great state.
Yes, the anti-advertising laws have been successfully challenged on free-speech grounds. But what do you mean by a “teetotaling drinker”? That’s an oxymoron.
You are right. Bad choice of words. I just meant that I have the impression that she doesn’t drink much and probably hasn’t had to deal with the unusual processes required just to get a decent drink in this state. I could have the wrong impression, though.
Mr. Kezermezer and I were at a local supermarket the other night around midnight (we live in Texas) and there were signs saying no wine with an alcohol content above 14.9 could be sold after ten pm any night, or at all on Sunday. Now, I thought this was pretty crazy. But we started looking for a nice white with a below 14.9 percentage. Some guy who works there was walking by and said it’s too late to buy any wine at all.
Huh?
Well, we didn’t pursue it.
But still, I thought this was pretty loony. They won’t let us buy a bottle of wine just because it’s late, or it’s Sunday? How does it being Sunday have anything to do with my consumption of alcohol? The religious connection here is pretty obvious. But besides, how do they know I’m going to drink it that night? What business of theirs is it anyway? What if I’d bought the bottle at noon the day before? I could still drink it as soon as I got home from the store on Sunday.
Idiotic.
The consumption of alcohol is a privelige, not a right.
Individual states are allowed to make laws that do not abridge federal law. There is no federal law concerning the sale of alcohol, thus the states (and local jurisdictions, if allowed by state law) are allowed to control the sale of alcohol.
This issue was discussed ad nauseum in a constitutional law class I took a few years ago.
I’d have to say the Supremes blew that one. (But then, they never ask me.) I wonder if they’d be willing to take another look at that question after 42 years.