Even though I personally don't drink, show me where in the constitution the covernment can regulate the age at which one can drink? Germans would no doubt recognize the drinking laws and prohibition as unconstitutional. The only countries that ever had prohibition are islamic @#$head nations, African British puppet states, and the USA.
They went after states on the right to vote. Trump's a coward if he won't sue states who p@#%ss on the RKBA.
I'll take it you didn't know the drinking age use to be 18. Why did the majority of states change to 21? There was no federal law passed only pressure from them. They used the power of the purse with federal funding from the states until they change.
I know about that fact; I 'm saying that the only other places where people think that the government should be able to tell them if they can drink are Sharia terrorist states in the middle east, and probably dictatorships, Singapore, etc. I guarantee that in Europe a proposal to make a law so someone can get married, be drafted, etc. but can't be trusted with alchohol would be laughed out of the court. Europeans didn't take crap from 1920's social warrior-southern baptist fried-"preacher boys" teeling them what they are allowed to do.
No disagreement from my end. I feel that 90% of our laws should be thrown out. The nanny state needs to end!
They should when a state shits on a legally ratified ammendment to the United states constitution. If a state banned catholics, everyone would expect the feds to step in and protect the first ammendment rights, nothing wrong with the fed stepping in to protect the rights guaranteed by the second ammendment.
You do realize most of Europe including Germany does set minimum ages to both drink and purchase alcohol right?
It isn't about what they are prohibited from doing. You need to show us where they explicitly are authorized to do it. The 10th ammendment clearly states that if they aren't explicitly given the power, they dont have it.
Kind of.
9th Amendment. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Exactly. They need to be authorized to do anything. Saying that they don't need constitutional authorization to make a regulation concerning anything (forget about alchohol I was using it as an example) is where this country began the slide toward the nanny state, and it all started with the republican party being too cowardly to oppose FDR's blatent extension of government beyond the level authorized by the constitution.
Trump a Coward? LOL He has The Biggest, Nicest, Shiny Balls around.
Then he should probably do something about NY and CA.
AMEN!
The state governments are not entitled to federal money. That is why they can intimidate the state's into complying with the wishes of the federal government. When the Feds instituted an income tax the state's saw it as a cash cow, now they pay the piper. If they had opposed it and not allowed it to become the law of the land. The Feds would never have had the leverage that they do.
Exactly, axe income tax; you defang the beast.
