Comment: Sorry, humans have the right

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: ummm (see in situ)

Sorry, humans have the right

Sorry, humans have the right to consume anything they want including alcohol long before our government existed.

Man wasn't given natural rights because of the government. We are only given positive rights because of the government... aka the right to trial by jury can only exists because of the creation of the government.

Man was given natural rights long before the government was created.

Natural law doesn't only exist through the federal government. It exists regardless if government exists or not, therefore it can apply to any state or the federal government.

I quoted states laws for various reasons.

1. Lets argue the state laws from the states perspective. I believe in a liberty oriented government even on the state level, and I believe all governments should honor natural law which precedes the government itself. Not everything HAS to be the federal level.

2. Lets look at it from a federal constitutional level. The federal government, illegally, forced the states to change the drinking ages. If the federal government is forcing the states to change something that violates the 9th amendment/ natural law, then somebody should have done something before the drinking ages became institutionalized.
Depending on how you view the 9th amendment and various supreme court rulings, the federal government arguably has the power to interfere with the state law under certain circumstances. It reads,
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." For this argument, lets assume the federal government doesn't nes. have the right to overturn state laws. The thing is the federal government was involved in changing the state laws without the enumerated right to do so.
Clearly, the federal government does not have the authority to bully the states into changing their laws, where is their enumerated right to affect intrastate commerce. Clearly then, the federal government is denying and disparaging rights by coercing the states in a realm they have never been given authority. They are depriving the right of somebody to control their own life, aka drink. Let me make another connection to how drinking relates to your life. If you have the right to your life, you also have the right to end it. You also have the right to throw your life away and be an alcoholic. You also have the right consume alcohol or another drug or object that your heart desires. Now your parents may stop you, but the federal government (some would argue all 50 states as well) does not have the authority to regulate your life so long as you are not harming anyone else. This right is protected through natural law which is protected by the 9th amendment to the constitution. The federal government acts out of its enumerated powers by coercing the states to violate your natural right to regulate your own life without interference from the states. It's reasonable to believe that the "other rights" that weren't enumerated in the bill of rights follow natural law, a commonly held theory at the time of the adoption of the constitution. I interpret the 9th amendment to clearly state that just because we didn't list a right, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If we are to be strict constitutionalists, then each state should decide their own drinking laws (under this interpretation), then I resort back to # 1 where I make the argument that it should be left up to the states. At the state level I would then also oppose the laws because it violates the natural rights of those under 21, many of whom are old enough to vote for Ron Paul.

3. Now lets use the Liberal supreme court justices arguments on them. Lets assume that the 14th amendment and the incorporation of the bill of rights into all of the states is indeed constitutional. They can't just ignore incorporating the 9th amendment, which would, assuming my reasoning above including natural rights in the 9th amendment is correct, mean that the federal government has the authority to overturn state laws that violate natural rights. Would having a centralized liberty protecting really be that bad? That is up for debate.