The Court noted that the parents had a right to make fundamental decisions in a Childs upbringing but had no legal right to prevent other parties from attempting to influence their children. Therefore, the only remedies available to Alston in this case are to recover money from their children or to file an action against the retailers who sold the alcohol to the minors in violation of the law. Unless the parents can prove some injury in fact, any alternative theory will likely fail on the lack of standing
2. In this hypothetical, it seems unlikely that Alston could maintain a standing to sue against anyone of the cigarette manufacturers, individually or collectively. In order to do so, she would have to prove first that she suffered an injury in fact, and even then she would have to prove that the suffered harm is direct, concrete and individualized.
…show more content…
In doing so, they would effectively mitigate the unreasonable burden placed on parties alleging a claim against gateway according to the courts analysis. For those purchases less than 2000.00, Gateway would need to find a more reasonable forum for arbitration or else it is likely the court would find the clause invalid as they have with the case at the bar.
The implications in this case was that significant since the cumulative claim of all of the class members may now proceed in a U.S. court rather than in an international arbitration. If Gateway would have won, they would have a significant advantage because the costs of international arbitration would likely exceed the benefits of pursuing the claim against
The Court ruled for the juvenile, stating that his rights to due process were indeed violated according to the Fourteenth Amendment. “The proceedings of the Juvenile Court failed to comply with the Constitution. The Court held that the proceedings for juveniles had to comply with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment” (Oyez, n.d.). The Court analyzed the juvenile court's method of handling cases, verifying that, while there are good reasons behind handling juveniles in a different way from adults, adolescents seeking to settling delinquency and detainment cases are qualified for certain procedural safeguards under the Due Process Act of the Fourteenth
In the contents of this paper, four points of view will be discussed on an extremely controversial issue that has an effect on a large percentage of citizens in the United States. The issue at hand is whether the legal age to consume alcohol should be lowered from 21 to 18, and will state a pro and con side, as well as 2 stakeholders for each side of the argument. The stakeholders on the pro side are as follows: Underage consumers of alcohol, businesses that sell and the companies that produce alcohol. The people on the con side of the argument that would want the legal age to remain at 21 include State and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies, as well as the demographic of Parents that would prefer to keep their children from being exposed to alcohol at a potentially young age. As you continue to read the stakeholders opinions and arguments will be explained, after which the author’s personal opinion will be advanced. After doing my own in depth research on the topic, the legal age to consume alcohol should remain at 21 as set by the United States Congress when they passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act (NMDAA) in July of 1984. This act punished every state that allowed persons below 21 years of age to purchase and publicly possess alcoholic beverages by reducing its annual federal highway apportionment by ten percent. (National Minimum Drinking Age Act) This caused all fifty continental U.S. states to set their legal drinking age to 21, and it has remained there for thirty years.
E: The bar should be held responsible because they have violated the law by letting in underage kids without
Bob Marley once said, “Herb is the healing of a nation, alcohol is the destruction.” This is the case when it comes to teens and alcohol. In America, the National Minimum Legal Drinking Age is a topic of great debate and controversy. Many people argue that the age restriction provides a safe environment for all citizens; whereas others disagree that the law creates an untrustworthy aura among teens. If the minimum legal drinking age were to be lowered, most people would be affected by it, whether it be by an increase in drunk-driving or a rise in crimes. Although teens are legally considered adults by the age of eighteen and the minimum legal drinking age prompts underage teens to exhibit risky behavior, the age restriction should not be lowered from twenty-one to eighteen because young teens would have easier access to alcohol, the minimum legal drinking age has decreased alcohol-related problems, and alcohol can cause damage to underage drinkers.
Main, Carla T. “Underage Drinking and the Drinking Age.” Policy Review. June/July 2009: 33-46. Wilson OmniFile Full Text Mega Edition. Web. 3 Mar. 2010.
In their jurisdictional statement and brief in the Court, appellants do not urge upon all of the points passed upon by the Supreme Court of Arizona. They urge that we hold the Juvenile Code of Arizona invalid on its face or as applied in this case because,
Ed. Irene L. Clark, Ph.D. Boston: Thomson-Heinle, 1998. “Minors and Alcoholic Beverages.” State of Iowa Alcoholic Beverages Division. 2003
The purpose of having an MLDA is to prevent underage consumption of alcohol, but the current age has been proven to have little effect on the matter. Teenagers have many ways of obtaining alcoholic beverages such as using fake identification cards and getting an older friend or family member to buy it for them. The methods used to purchase alcohol have been successful; teenagers account for twenty-two and a half billion dollars of consumer spending for alcohol in the United States.” ("Should the Drinking Age Be Lowered from 21 to a Younger Age?"). The thrill of breaking the law and being defiant is thrilling to young adults, so raising the age or restricting them from a right they should have is not helping the problem of underage drinking, but encouraging it. While it can be said that the legal age is twenty-one and it prohibits teenagers from purchasing and consuming alcohol publicly, it remains a fact that the teenagers do...
Hosking, Elizabeth. "Drinking laws remind parents of their responsibility." USA Today E 6: Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Apr. 2010.
Van Hoof argues children cannot possibly comprehend the overwhelming consequences. She questions if children cannot legally drink, marry, vote, or smoke before ages 16-18, then she wonders why society would punish them and let them make this decision when they clearly do not have competence. (Schultz, 3). The children simply lack the maturity and knowledge required.
The ongoing debate is the perceived unfairness in the minimum legal drinking age act in the United States to 21 that many believe as unnecessarily high. The rationale of this law, enacted in 1984, was to reduce the number of alcohol related road accidents among young adolescent, but apart from this, evidence show that increasing the age of alcohol consumption only created a forbidden fruit appeal.
It can be inferred that the opposing arguments published in the Washington Post by T.R. Reid and Joseph Califano in regard to teenage drinking in America and other nations of the western hemisphere are not only polar opposites, but so extreme that it does not allow for a happy median. Harsh restrictions not only discourage parents of today's American society from talking freely with teens pertaining to responsible drinking, but also chastises parents who allow teens to experiment with alcohol in a controlled setting with experienced adults. Alcohol consumption should be the decision of a well informed adult. Alcohol should not be regarded as such an unsettling topic when encounters with alcohol are inevitable and prevalent in our daily lives.
Choosing this particular topic was to help put a better viewpoint towards the situation of underage drinking. It is understandable how parents would go against it, still, be more optimistic and look into the facts and statistics. Wouldn’t you want your child to have their first drunken experience around you, that way you witness first-hand? Teenagers under the age of twenty-one need to know the difference between drinking just to get drunk and drinking to be social. There are countless questions to ask yourself; by reading this you should possibly consider pushing your thoughts in a different standpoint.
I agree with you, I don't think any parent would let a 12 year old drink alcohol. It must of been very accessible or he must of done it in secrecy. His family didn't support him at all instead they insisted that he would end up like his father. He would drink till he passed out so he could forget his problems.
As a result of underage drinking, 5,000 adolescents under the age of 21 die annually due to intoxication (taking motor vehicle crashes, homicides, suicides, and other injuries while intoxicated into consideration) (paragraph 2). Later in life, underage drinkers are more likely to develop alcoholism, poor performance in school, and risky sexual behavior (paragraph 43). Although this research is not opposed to my argument, there is an importance to acknowledging it as proof of dangerous, underage drinking occurring significantly regardless of whether it is illegal. More importantly, this research stems from adolescents drinking without the supervision of adults and in uncontrolled quantities. Since adolescents must wait a long period of time to drink legally, I believe they fear they must take advantage of drinking opportunities by excess drinking and risk of safety due to their restriction to alcohol. Based on this mindset, I believe exposure to alcohol at a younger age in controlled environments would not only decrease underage drinking in large quantities, but injury and death related to intoxication, as