[flagged]
(Sorry these textualist posts are just extremely tedious. 300m people in the richest country in history aren't governed solely by a document that is literally a pamphlet. There's case law and statutes. Your best bet here if this is a good faith question is to ask Google)
>The authority of States to proscribe selling alcohol to minors is based on what Amendment?
Commerce clause says congress has the right to regulate commerce.
>The authority of States to require that you enter a contract with an insurer before operating a vehicle is based on what. Amendment?
Little know fact, states only have the right to require insurance if a vehicle is being used for commerce. Personal use transportation does not legally require DMV registration or insurance but the vast majority of people dont know this and voluntarily opt-in to being regulated by laws specifically created to protect paying passengers (taxis) and paid cargo carriers (semis) from accidents.
The _Federal_ govt can regulate _interstate_ commerce. The way they enforce minimum alcohol age and speed limits is by threatening to withhold highway subsidies.
The way States have the authority is the 10th Amendment + there's not a Constitutional right to ingest whatever you want (actually seems like a core freedom, but let's not get sidetracked). Generally this creates a system where States are free to restrict "rights" the Constitution is silent on.
> Little know fact, states only have the right to require insurance if a vehicle is being used for commerce. Personal use transportation does not legally require DMV registration or insurance
This is super wrong. Here's Indiana's statute [0]. Nothing about commercial use only. States have total authority here as long as their constitutions permit it.
[0]: https://codes.findlaw.com/in/title-9-motor-vehicles/in-code-...
The key is in the terminology used. A "motor vehicle" is distinctly different from "personal/private transport" from a legal standpoint. The former describes a form of transport used for commercial purposes. It's also why these commercial licenses and registrations are issued by an organization called the DMV.
Traveling on roads is a right defined in common law, only doing so in a commercial capacity is a privilege that can be regulated using licenses. Hard to believe, I know.
>Payne v. Massey (19__) 196 SW 2nd 493, 145 Tex 273. “The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.”[0]
>American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: “(6) Motor vehicle. – The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways…” 10) The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”[0]
[0] https://wearechange.org/u-s-supreme-court-says-no-license-ne...