Constitutionality of the Alcohol Regulation Act

Appellant

Liberal Union

Filed

Feb. 1, 2021

Decided

April 10, 2021

The case

The appellant's argument, then every party's submission, oldest first. Submissions are advisory: the justices read them, they do not count as votes.

1. Middle Alliance Oppose · 10 Aug 2026, 2:42 a.m.

   Alcoholic rates will rise and the people will be hurt.

The bench

Each justice's vote and reasoning, published under their seat number. The court never reveals who sits on it.

• Justice #1 Deny

  This appeal is far too broadly defined to be accepted.
  
  While the constitution does require equal treatment, it does not prohibit governments from imposing reasonable restrictions on commerce, the age at which citizens may undertake certain activities or the behaviour which citizens can engage in in public.
  
  If this appeal were to succeed it would necessarily follow that effectively any restrictions imposed by any law would be unconstitutional. To use an analogy, the government would be unable to determine at what age children may drive, would be unable to impose speed limits and would be unable to ask that citizens drive on a particular side of the road.
  
  The appeal is comprehensively denied.

• Justice #2 Deny

  The appeal is dismissed. The challenged Alcohol Regulation pursues legitimate public-health and public-order objectives through measures rationally connected to those objectives. The existence of less restrictive alternatives does not, without more, establish a constitutional violation. The legislature retains reasonable discretion to determine the appropriate balance between individual liberty and the protection of public welfare.

• Justice #3 Deny

  Article VI of the Constitution of Costavela states: The Congress of Deputies shall be responsible for the regulation of businesses.
  
  Nowhere in the Constitution does it make the current laws unconstitutional.
  
  This is a very clear case, the legislature is responsible for this matter, not the judiciary.

• Justice #4 Deny

  The Appellant’s appeal is on the Alcohol Regulation Law in Costavela and whether it conflicts with the constitutional liberty of Costavelan citizens. However the Appellant has failed to clarify which part of the Constitution this law supposedly is in conflict with, and upon further analysis of the Costavelan Constitution, there does not seem to be any article that would expressively enshrine individual liberty or rights within the Constitution for the law to oppose or conflict with. The reasons given as to why the Court should replace this policy are ideological reasons, not constitutional reasons; these reasons would be more appropriate in the Legislature, not the Judiciary as the Supreme Court can only make decisions on laws based according to the written Costavelan Constitution - ideas and rights that have not been codified into the Constitution would not be taken into account. With only ideological and political reasons being cited for the unlawfulness of the policy, rather than actual constitutional justification, I would have to dismiss this appeal and advise all participants to resolve this matter in the legislative chambers instead.

• Justice #5 Deny

  The Constitution of Costavela does not establish a constitutional right to purchase or consume alcohol, nor does it prescribe a specific minimum drinking age, level of taxation, retail hours, or rules concerning public consumption. The Constitution contains no general guarantee of individual liberty, equality, or economic freedom that would provide a basis for the proportionality challenge advanced by the appellant.
  
  Article VI expressly assigns the Congress of Deputies the power to regulate businesses. Regulation of the sale and public consumption of alcohol falls within the ordinary scope of such regulatory authority. The appellant’s arguments principally concern the policy merits and proportionality of the existing restrictions rather than demonstrating a conflict with a specific constitutional provision.
  
  Accordingly, I find that the appellant has not established that the Alcohol Regulation Act is unconstitutional. From my perspective, the appeal should therefore be denied.

• Justice #6 Deny

  Article VI provides that the Congress of Deputies is responsible for "Regulating Businesses". This competence is set forth without any qualifier, without any limitation of degree, and without any reference to any standard of proportionality, necessity, or least restriction. The regulation of the sale, taxation, hours, and public consumption of alcohol falls, by its very nature, within the regulation of commercial activities. Nothing in the text distinguishes, within this competence, "reasonable" regulation from "strict" regulation. The Congress of Deputies is granted a plenary power of discretion, not a power circumscribed by what this Court might deem balanced.
  
  The appellant invokes an infringement upon "constitutional liberty" and "equal treatment of citizens". This characterization calls for a decisive preliminary observation, as these concepts appear nowhere in the constitutional text. Unlike other constitutions that set forth individual rights, non-discrimination clauses, or fair trial guarantees, the Constitution of Costavela does not currently contain any provision of this nature. It is an exclusively organic and structural text. It does not include a bill of rights. This Court cannot, under the guise of interpretation, add to the text what the drafters did not write into it. There is no liberty clause to balance, no equality clause to reconcile, and no standard of proportionality written into the text with which a law of the Congress of Deputies must comply. The Court cannot invent such a standard only to then apply it to a power that the text confers without reservation.
  
  The appellant's argument is based, in reality, on a conception of what the Constitution should contain, rather than what it does contain. Whether the threshold of eighteen years of age, moderate taxation, extended hours, and public consumption zones constitute a preferable policy is a matter of legislative wisdom, not of constitutionality. The brief of the Middle Alliance, which fears an increase in alcoholism, commits the same methodological error in reverse. Both parties are asking the Court to arbitrate a public policy debate that the text has entrusted, without condition, to the Congress of Deputies.
  
  It is true that Article II allows for the revision of the Constitution by a qualified majority of both chambers. If the people of Costavela wish for individual liberty or equal treatment to become a constitutional standard enforceable against commercial regulatory laws, the path is that of amendment, rather than that of constitutional litigation. This Court cannot substitute itself for this process without exceeding its office, which is to state the law as it is written, not as one would wish it to be.
  
  Held:
  
  1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it requests that the current Alcohol Regulation Act be declared unconstitutional.
  
  2. The regulation of alcohol, namely the legal age, taxation, hours of sale, and public consumption, falls within the "Regulate Businesses" power granted without reservation to the Congress of Deputies by Article VI, and as such constitutes a matter of plenary legislative policy.
  
  3. In the absence of any constitutional provision enshrining a right to individual liberty, equal treatment, or proportionality review enforceable against commercial regulatory laws, this Court has no textual standard enabling it to invalidate the choices of the Congress of Deputies in this matter.
  
  4. Nothing in this decision prejudges the appropriateness, severity, or liberality of alcohol policy, a question that remains entirely entrusted to the ordinary political process and, where applicable, to the amendment procedure of Article II.