If a under age buyer of Liquor and or intoxicated Liquor who is at fault?

The tricky approach to zoning has alway in the pass point to The Buyer under age as immune but recent view of the Amendment point to the Underage of 21 years violation of The Bill of Rights of The United States Constitution which leaves the minor and Parent and or Parents including Guardian at fault for the miss use of the Right to intoxicated purchase not the Seller as noted in Law State and local control

The second section bans the importation of alcohol in violation of state or territorial law. This has been interpreted to give states essentially absolute control over alcoholic beverages, and many U.S. states still remained "dry" (with state prohibition of alcohol) long after its ratification.Mississippi was the last, remaining dry until 1966; Kansas continued to prohibit public bars until 1987. Many states now delegate the authority over alcohol granted to them by this Amendment to their municipalities or counties (or both), which has led to many lawsuits over First Amendment rights when local governments have tried to revoke liquor licenses.

Court rulings

Section 2 has been the source of everySupreme Court ruling directly addressing Twenty-first Amendment issues.

Early rulings suggested that Section 2 enabled states to legislate with exceptionally broad constitutional powers. In State Board of Equalization v. Young's Market Co., 299 U.S. 59 (1936), the Supreme Court recognized that "Prior to the Twenty-first Amendment it would obviously have been unconstitutional" for a state to require a license and fee to import beer anywhere within its borders. First, the Court held that Section 2 abrogated the right to import intoxicating liquors free of a direct burden on interstate commerce, which otherwise would have been unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause before passage of the Twenty-first Amendment. In its second holding, the Court rejected an equal protection claim because "A classification recognized by the Twenty-first Amendment cannot be deemed forbidden by the Fourteenth." Over time, the Court has significantly curtailed this initial interpretation.

In Craig v. Boren (1976), the Supreme Court found that analysis under theEqual Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had not been affected by the passage of the Twenty-first Amendment. Although the Court did not specify whether the Twenty-first Amendment could provide an exception to any other constitutional protections outside of the Commerce Clause, it acknowledged "the relevance of the Twenty-first Amendment to other constitutional provisions becomes increasingly doubtful." Likewise, it has been held that Section 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment does not affect the Supremacy Clause (World War II) or the Establishment Clause. However, theCraig v. Boren Court did distinguish two characteristics of state laws permitted by the Amendment, which otherwise might have run afoul of the Constitution. The constitutional issues in each centered or touched upon:(1) "importation of intoxicants, a regulatory area where the State's authority under the Twenty-first Amendment is transparently clear;" and (2) "purely economic matters that traditionally merit only the mildest review under theFourteenth Amendment." As to theDormant Commerce Clause in particular, the Court clarified that, while not a pro tanto repeal, the Twenty-First Amendment nonetheless "primarily created an exception to the normal operation of the Commerce Clause."^[16]

In South Dakota v. Dole (1987), the Supreme Court upheld the withholding of some federal highway funds toSouth Dakota, because beer with an alcohol content below a specified percentage (which still not been defined)could be lawfully sold to adults under the age of 21 within the state.