So hypothetically, it would be possible for a law to be passed that restricts any right by age? Let’s say, people under 30 might not be allowed to drink alchohol? Or represent themselves in court?
No.
What is the activity that is being restricted? Is it a constitutional right? Is it a fundamental human right recognised by courts? Is it generally the kind of decision that we as a society view should be left to individuals? Is it a right granted by statute?
There are a number of different levels of scrutiny that the government might have to face, depending on how this question is answered. If your freedom of religion is being abridged, strict scrutiny may apply (the law must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest). If it’s commercial speech that’s is being abridged then intermediate scrutiny may apply (the law must further an important or substantial government interest).
I’m oversimplifying, because without addressing a specific question, it’s difficult to make an accurate, generalised statement.
If none of these tests apply, then the government still has to have a rational basis for the restriction. Given that 21 is historically the upper limit for minority, it would be difficult for the government to argue that age restrictions should be pushed higher than that.
Oh, and one more thing: I think most people think about this the wrong way around. The government isn’t limiting the “drinking rights” of those under a certain age; rather, they’re extending the privilege to drink to those above a certain age. It’s the same thing as voting – the government holds all the “rights”, and then extends them to the citizenry, rather than the citizenry holding them and having it restricted by the government.
No, I don’t think this is what American constitutional law is based on at all. You start with the proposition that people are allowed to do what they want to do. If the government wants to regulate a particular activity, it has to come up with a reason.
I don’t think it’s helpful at all to think in terms of “rights” against “privileges.” The consumption of alcohol is the subject neither of a right or a privilege. It is simply an activity that individuals are free to choose to engage in unless it comes to the attention to the government (that is, the collective will of the people) that there is a good reason to regulate it. Should the people decide that government has made a mistake in its judgement, the people may elect a new government.
(just adding)
That’s how a democracy works – with majority rule. “Rights” come into play when it is decided that there are particular areas in which we don’t want majority to be able to impose its decisions. Underage drinking has never become one of those areas in which the political or legal or social system has decided as a whole that it’s too important to keep out of the majority’s reach.
I would argue that the “right to consume alcohol” is a “right” that is a subset of the “right” to “liberty”, as guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments. Your “liberty” cannot be infringed by the government without due process of law. Your “liberty” in the form of a “right to consume alcohol” is a “right”, just not a “fundamental right”. As such, a law restricting that “right” is presumed constitutional and easily defended under a standard of minimal scrutiny (i.e., the law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest to be constitutional).
This is opposed to a law that restricts a “fundamental right” (or discriminates against a “suspect class” for purposes of the “equal prtoection clause” of the 14th Amendment as it applies to states and as applied to the federal government via incorporation into the 5th amendment), which such law, as stated in a previous post, is presumed unconstitutional and must be defended under strict scrutiny of the court (i.e., the law must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest).
Yes. 
Well, from what I was told by a local (UK) police officer, which I’d hope is a pretty reliable source.
I’m not sure how that fares in this, er, question, because whether 6-year-olds have the ability to decide if drinking the nice bottle their poverty-stricken father’s just been swigging from, and would have no objection to his son drinking, is a good question indeed.
You’re aware, aren’t you, that Pacific Grove CA was completely “dry” – no liquor sales or bars – until sometime in the 1970’s, right?
acsenray already covered this, but I must say, that’s a scary attitude. Can the government decide to stop extending to me the privilege to wear shoes, watch the sun set, eat ice cream, or turn my light off at night? How grateful I am that they’ve deemed me worthy of those activities…
This presupposes the existence of a boogey man called “Government”. Government is us, folks. We as a society decided a long time ago that some activities need to be restricted, and a system of laws was implemented to establish and enforce those restrictions. We can change laws if we like. If you think that there’s a god-given right to drink and the government has no business regulating it: fine. You’re a Libertarian. Vote Libertarian. Start a petition to repeal drinking laws.
So if…
and…
then how…
Sounds like we, as a society, did not restrict the drinking age for anything than to appease the government. What kind of country is this?
And for something that seems discrimintory, thus against our consitution, it doesn’t seem feasible that we should try to petition it state to state.
And did we vote on this in each state?
Establishing a legal drinking age is not discriminatory or unconstitutional. Changing the age from one number to another is just tweaking a law–a non-discriminatory, constitutional one-- that’s already in place (but no argument from here, that it was done for any reason other than to appease the federal government and keep funds flowing).
No, it wasn’t voted on by the citizens of each state–that’s why we have a representative democracy. If you don’t like it, find a candidate in favor of lowering the drinking age and vote for him. If you can’t find one, run for office yourself.
Yes, our elected legislators voted on this in every state.
i’m confused, isn’t establishing any kind of law based on age discrinatory towards… age?
If you want to split semantic hairs, then you could say that a minimum drinking age is discriminatory–but not unconstitutional.
I think what we need here is a lawyer, to cite the case law that establishes the precedents that minors do not have the full rights and privileges of adult citizens. Because that’s essentially what’s going on–it’s legal to discriminate against minors. Setting a minimum age for an activity, whether it’s driving, smoking, drinking, gambling or signing contracts, has long been an established, legal, constitutional practice.
It might seem that the lowering of the voting age from 21 to 18 established some sort of precedent that’s applicable to drinking age. This isn’t necessarily true. The voting age wasn’t changed because it was unconstitutional; it was changed because a consensus of public opinion felt that it was the right thing to do. It could have stayed at 21 forever.
(exor, I’m guessing you’re between 18 and 21… )
Alcohol is acknowledged to affect brain chemistry significantly, and can be addictive. For these reasons, alcohol is a regulated substance in many countries. Most drugs of this nature are illegal, the major exceptions being alcohol and tobacco. They are not excepted because they are less dangerous, only because they are established. The regulatory laws that exist in most countries are a compromise between allowing alcohol to be a product like any other (as it used to be), and outlawing it as a harmful drug.
The age restriction is a matter of social responsibility. It is no different than a speed limit: many of us could drive safely above the speed limit, but it exists to protect those who can’t, and also to protect us from them. The affects of alcohol can be severe, and combined with the incomplete social development of many youth, it can have dire consequences.
I have exceeded the speed limit in my life; I have used illegal drugs; I have imbibed alcohol when underage. What I have not done is complained that what I was doing was illegal, because I understood the social value of those restrictions.