But THE MOST PERVASIVE AND LEGAL DISCRIMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES.... is the stripping of the rights of eighteen-to-twenty year olds in this country.
An eighteen year old can sign up for basic duty, be given a weapon to fire, be shipped off to duty in another country within two years, and ORDERED TO LEGALLY MURDER PEOPLE (or killed themselves).
Yet, that same eighteen year old, when he returns as a nineteen- or twenty-year old back to this country, CANNOT ... buy booze (but can sell it), buy cigarettes, buy a lottery ticket, afford car insurance, among other things. HE/SHE can MAIM/MUTILATE/DESTROY/MURDER/KILL another human being (as long as it's 'legit' - no drive-bys from the Humvees on the Baghdad Highway, unless they shoot first, or refuse to stop even though they can't hear your orders).
Tell me, does this REALLY make sense? An eighteen-year old, according to the United States Constitution, in Amendment XXVI, is clearly established as a voting citizen of the United States. Amendment XIV, Section 1 reads:
"Section 1.Emphasis mine.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So the civil rights of an eighteen year old (or for that matter a two-year old) ARE the equivalent of a twenty-one year old.
Yet federal law in 1984, Sec. 158 of the Federal Highway Code says:
"State grandfather law as complying. - If, before the laterEmphasis mine.
of (A) October 1, 1986, or (B) the tenth day following the last
day of the first session the legislature of a State convenes
after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, such State has
in effect a law which makes unlawful the purchase and public
possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person
who is less than 21 years of age (other than any person who is 18
years of age or older on the day preceding the effective date of
such law and at such time could lawfully purchase or publicly
possess any alcoholic beverage in such State), such State shall
be deemed to be in compliance with paragraphs (1) and (2) of this
subsection in each fiscal year in which such law is in effect."
It is quite apparent that the Highway Code penalizes those states which do not have UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws abridging the "privileges or immunities of citizens", denying them federal funds in maintaining or improving the federal highway system.
Now, there is the "without due process of law" aspect added to the "protection" afforded to eighteen-year olds who want to buy booze. Since the due process of law produced the Federal Highway Act amendment to Section 158, is this within the Constitutional argument? If so, then why can't black people be denied the right to buy booze? Whites? Why can't there be a law passed to deny women a license to drive an automobile? Because Court decisions have supported the rights of women and stopped such discrimination.
Activist courts.
If eighteen-year olds really want to do things legally, they need to vote. They need to pursue this argument. Any law proscribing a privilege from one group, which is afforded to other groups of people is UNCONSTITUTIONAL if the sole factor in prohibiting said group from enjoying that privilege is a generic factor beyond their control. That is plain. Stand up for your rights, people.
South Dakota v. Dole did not pursue the unconstitutional discrimination angle. Someone should. States may lose the 5%. But if one case were tried, all state drinking laws would be invalidated. The outcry from the governors and states in such a case could very well force Congress to change this outrageous stipulation.
Care, people. Stand up. Believe in yourselves.
NO MORE BU--SH--
No comments:
Post a Comment