The Legal Voting Age Debate
The legal age of voting currently stands at eighteen. This is an age,
which has previously been lowered from twenty-one due to a statute
reform.
There are many reasons for the reform of a statute, one being the
attitude changes that are presented over time, making the laws, or
statutes become outdated. This was indeed the case when women were
given the vote. It had previously been assumed that a woman's vote
would be controlled by a man, if unmarried her father, if married then
her husband. It was only during the period where women became equal,
independent thinkers that they were given the vote.
It is for a reason similar to the above that in my opinion the legal
age to vote should not be lowered. When you consider the large number
of young people (over 18) who have the opportunity to vote and do not
it places an alarming hypothesis for the number of non-voters when
considering a younger age band.
An additional justification of why I have this opinion is that I
believe of those few sixteen year-olds who would vote there would be a
large percentage of individuals who would not find out about the
policies, but would simply follow in the footsteps of their parents
vote. This may be done for one of two reasons. Firstly, they may lack
the interest to find out and understand the policies for themselves.
Secondly they may be under pressure from an adult to influence their
vote. A practical example of this is the hypothesis of the man
controlling the woman's vote in the early part of the century. This is
a concern as younger people in general are more easily swayed in their
decision.
A further reason to highlight the dangers of voting in this way is
that opinions do change through time. By this is mean that it is
unlikely that a young person will have the same views on some subjects
such as drugs and education than an older individual such as a parent
In chapter one, Wattenberg discusses the declining trends of Americans who regularly read newspapers between the 1960’s and present day. This can be attributed the aging patterns among generations who frequently read newspapers as well as with the use of technology rising. Reading the newspaper is a habit that either is or is not developed by the time one reaches voting age. With this, newspapers have become an older generation’s primary source of information, however, are still the best source for political matters. Younger generations tend to be more computer literate and have grown up with television and media more accessible to them than the previous generation. These trends not only reflect in American culture, but in other countries worldwide such as Italy, and Germany. Quoting a 2003 fox news interview of President Bush, Wattenberg illustrates the vast decline of newspaper consumption; even the U.S. President isn’t reading newspapers (11). Using tables throughout chapter one to illustrate the drastic differences within the last 50 years, the author exemplifies a 35% point decrease from 1957 to 2004. He speculates that perhaps young adults don’t like to read, but proves that is not the case as surveys have shown that education levels have risen overall, and access to books and reading has also increased over the years; thereby concluding that young people read, but do not typically read the newspaper. While there are several newspaper websites available, young adults do not frequently read those websites either. Although TV news information is not as detailed as it is in newspapers, young people have an ability to make up for their disinterest in newspapers by watching the news headlines (30). Chapter one makes a strong case...
an inconvenience for others, but in some cases illegal. I could only hope that more
unacceptable in legal terms. However, the issue is not so clear in moral terms among the
as a felony crime. But recently there have been court cases taken up in two
statute. The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed. People v. Gacy, 103 Ill. 2d 1, 82 Ill.Dec. 391,
you have certain legal rights of which you ought to be aware before you proceed
College life is filled with changes. It is filled with many new experiences. As college students, we are on our own, adults. As adults we are responsible for keeping up to date on information that affects us. One issue that affects college students nation wide is drinking. The current legal drinking age in the United States is twenty-one years of age. The Federal government raised the legal drinking age from 18 to 21 in 1984. Even with the current drinking age at twenty-one, many people under that age choose to drink anyway. In fact, a government survey from 1996 showed that 56% of high school seniors reported drinking in the last 30 days (Hanson). With so many underage drinkers, many people believe that the drinking age should be lowered, stating that people are going to drink, regardless of the legal age. Still others see the high number of underage drinkers as a sign that the legal age needs to stay where it is and stricter laws need to be implemented. With the extremely high number of underage drinking, we can assume that the current drinking age is relatively ineffective, and therefore we must ask ourselves: should the drinking age be lowered, or should we revise policies to make the current age more effective? It is important to view all sides of the issue before deciding which side to be on. We must look responsibly at the issue instead of saying that the drinking age should be lowered, simply because we are under 21. The current drinking age has many debatable sides, or approaches which need to be examined. Those approaches include lowering the drinking age because the current policies don?t work, lowering the drinking age because it would lead to more responsible drinking, kee...
Although Judaism feels that these are all good reasons, the particular circumstance has to be brought up in front of the Poskim (The Rabbis that decide these Ethical Dilemmas based upon Jewish law). It is up to the Poskim to decide whet...
is legal depends upon whether or not it serves a valid goal or purpose of a
Over the past few weeks the presidential race has dominated our nation. Not a day goes by where I do not find new posts on Facebook that involve the upcoming presidential election. Without fail, one of my friends on Facebook always publishes an article, opinion, or meme regarding Hilary or Trump, which, do not misconstrue my opinion, is amazing. An informed society supporting their representative and exercising their rights is exactly what our country needs. However, much to my alarm, I have discovered on Facebook and even The Odyssey, that plenty of people intend to boycott this election and not vote for anyone because they find both candidates inadequate. This decision to remain voiceless completely confounds me. Ultimately, how does refusing to vote solve anything?
In “You’re 16, You’re Beautiful and You’re a Voter,” author Anya Kamenetz states her belief that the voting age should be lowered to sixteen. Kamenetz gives several premises to her argument.
Debates over the what should be the legal age for drinking are often debated. This seems to be more prevalent around spring break, graduation or when teens begin to explore their independence. There are many reason for both sides of this debate. Such as the fact that many people who are under age drink anyway. Even though the law is quite clear as to the age you can legally drink. Some people have the feelings that these younger people would be less rebellious and more responsible if they could drink at a younger age. We also have other age restrictions in place for other forms of entertainment.
It can be argued illegality as a ground for judicial review was first established in the case of Entick v Carrington . The legal principle which emerged from the case was that, executive authorties are precluded from doing things which are not stipulated in common law or statutory provisions. This was to be the foundation for what Lord Diplock would term illegality in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister
...t for illegally profit, the consequences will be unfavorable; therefore, a decision has to be made in order to protect the rights of the original owner and the responsible party must be held responsible for any infractions.
However local governments both here in the US and abroad are either banning or “heavily restricted the sale of the products” stating they “are threatening