At What Age Do We get Our Constitutional Rights?

[QUOTE=B Three;1060624464]

Brain development, etc. is exactly the basis for not sentencing juveniles to death anymore, no matter how heinous the crime. It's behind the push for eliminating LWOP (life without opportunity for parole) as well. The age of majority really needs to be 20, IMHO. That would put kids out of high school and their teenage years. And most people agree about the teenage brain not being fully developed especially relating to reasoning skills and the ability to realize consequences.

However, there is one prevailing reason this is NOT going to happen. It's the US military. Without a constant stream of 18-19 year olds who are able to enlist without parental consent, our military simply would not function. Originally Posted by sjohnlewis

Wow, the military could not get along without the 17 to 22 year old kids who will do what ever that are told to do. Most of them call follow, but they can not think for themselves.

You always have the right... To Remain Silent.

I was writing a long answer explaining rational basis vs. heightened scrunity vs. strict scrutiny, but I decided to be brief.

Age is relevant in determining rights. But that is not to say that children do not have constitutional rights. In fact, all citizens benefit from the constitution. Competing interests can override a child’s right more easily than an adult’s right because age discimination gives a heightened scrutiny level of deferrence to congress (for anyone that knows a little con law I).

A SCOTUS case that clearly shows children have constitutional rights is Tinker. It states that young students “do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines.

There is no uniformly applicable age for all "rights". Only a very few, such as voting, have been defined. Almost everything else is subject to interpretation and judgement. As it should be since I have seen essentially no laws that are carefully enough written to stand on their own completely.

If states can address ages for alcohol, marriage, driving, signing contracts, etc., etc., then I find it fairly clear they can do so for almost everything else.

I also think there is a huge difference between laws that give minors (however you define that) protection, vice laws that allow them freedoms. In general, protections apply to people regardless of age (though some, like age based discrimination, do not) but freedoms do not. It is a very fuzzy area whether owning a gun is a protection or a freedom as it probably could be argued is some of each.

This probably should have been put on the 'national thread' under 'political forum'?

This probably should have been put on the 'national thread' under 'political forum'? Originally Posted by tinman483

No, if you want a reasonable discussion on a topic--especially one with very different perspectives--the Political forum is the LAST place to post. It has attracted a lot of deranged Wackos of both ends of the spectrum who never saw a discussion they won't quickly turn into an insult-fest.

I was writing a long answer explaining rational basis vs. heightened scrunity vs. strict scrutiny, but I decided to be brief.

Age is relevant in determining rights. But that is not to say that children do not have constitutional rights. In fact, all citizens benefit from the constitution. Competing interests can override a child’s right more easily than an adult’s right because age discimination gives a heightened scrutiny level of deferrence to congress (for anyone that knows a little con law I).

A SCOTUS case that clearly shows children have constitutional rights is Tinker. It states that young students “do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines. Originally Posted by sketchball82

As this answer touches on, you really can’t answer the question unless you are specific about 1) what constitutional right; and 2) under what factual scenario.

Your specific question goes to the Second Amendment. You need to reaIize that there was no private right created under the Second Amendment until Heller was decided in 2008. A private right to gun ownership was more of less created in that case out of whole cloth. Until then, since 1939, U.S, v. Miller held that it created only a collective right bestowed in the State to arm a militia.

So the fact that the limited contures of the private right created 10 years ago hasn’t been fleshed out isn’t at all surprising. And if you read Scalia’s opinion, it’s not much of a right and is subject to extremely heavy regulation. And some of that talk of how spare the right is was likely disingenuous, and an effort to get one or more of his Republican colleagues to overrule Miller.

Certainly regulation up to 21 years of age where public safety considerations are paramount, are likely to be held constitutional by any honest originality (if there is such a thing, and I’d argue ALL origunalists are frauds). But they believe in the police power. Trying to impair other rights outside the contextof schools will likely be tougher sledding.