[tpaine]

"I just am saying that the people of a state/city/community have the constitutional ability to prohibit 18-20 year olds access to alcohol. They have the constitutional ability to prohibit alcohol completely even. The Constitution does not prevent stupid state laws." -TA79-

And THAT I absolutely agree with. - #160 LG77-

A question. -- The 14th amendment says, [in part] : "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."

-- Does this section of the 14th apply to stupid, unconstitutional, prohibitive laws that deprive persons of property such as alcohol without due process?

211 posted by tpaine

Yep. You have the right to fight them just as vehemently as you do the Fed, but you lose the constitutionality argument.

I lose? -- Why? -- I doubt that you can explain your opinion using constitutional fact.

And if you REALLY don't like the laws in your state, well, that's why we have more than one state in these United States. You are free to move to one you like better. That's what I did.

No, we have a U.S. constitution that says, in effect, -- I don't have to move, as quoted above in the plain language of the 14th. -- A state has no power to pass such law. -- Words have meaning.

It's puzzling, - why would you deny your own individual liberty, as the 14th attempts to protect?

[LibertyGirl77]

Because I'm fairly certain (don't have my copy in front of me) that amendment is explicitly referencing due process of law, and you are twisting it out of context. When they say no man may be denied life, liberty or property without due process, they're talking about capital punishment, imprisonment and fines. You can't hang, lock up or fine a man without a trial.