Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Unconstitutional for South Carolina To Ban Alcohol Possession and Consumption
by 18-to-20-Year-Olds?
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_08_02-2009_08_08.shtml#1249535935
[1]S.C. Stats. §§ 63-19-2440 and -2450 generally ban
under-21-year-olds from possessing or consuming alcoholic beverages.
(There are some exceptions, including for consumption in religious
ceremonies and in the minor's parent's home.)
But [2]South Carolina Constitution, art. XVII, § 14 provides,
Every citizen who is eighteen years of age or older, not laboring
under disabilities prescribed in this Constitution or otherwise
established by law, shall be deemed sui juris and endowed with full
legal rights and responsibilities, provided, that the General
Assembly may restrict the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons
until age twenty-one.
Last year, the South Carolina Supreme Court used the provision to
[3]strike down a ban on handgun possession by 18-to-20-year-olds,
reasoning as follows:
Respondent further argues that § 16-23-30 violates the state
constitution because the age group of 18- to 20-year-olds is being
treated differently than adults aged 21 and above....
Article XVII, § 14, specifically makes reference to the fact the
General Assembly can restrict the sale of alcoholic beverages to
persons until age 21. By expressly allowing the regulation of the
sale of alcoholic beverages to the 18- to 20-year-old age group and
not stating any other situation in which the General Assembly may
restrict the rights of this age group, the state constitution
precludes the General Assembly from prohibiting this age group�s
possession of handguns. See Hodges v. Rainey, 341 S.C. 79, 533
S.E.2d 578 (2000) (the canon of construction �expressio unius est
exclusio alterius� or �inclusio unius est exclusio alterius� holds
that �to express or include one thing implies the exclusion of
another, or of the alternative�); see also Strickland v.
Strickland, 375 S.C. 76, 650 S.E.2d 465 (2007) (when interpreting a
statute, the words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning
without resorting to subtle or forced construction which limit or
expand the statute�s operation).
So while the constitutional provision expressly allows bans on sale of
alcoholic beverages to under-21-year-olds, it doesn't authorize bans
on possession (or for that matter bans on transfer other than by
sale). Two [4]magistrate judges have indeed so held, and the logic
strikes me as quite right, given the text of the provision and the
reasoning in the handgun possession decision (State v. Bolin).
References
1. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t63c019.htm
2. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/a17.htm
3. http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/26494.htm
4. http://www.thestate.com/local/story/886057.html
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
