It seems like this could have far wider repercussions than just the drinking age. The Federal government uses the threat of withholding money from the states as a way around the 10th amendment for many of the laws it implements. - http://fcc17628.tinylinks.co
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
What the Supreme Court Obamacare Ruling Means for the Drinking Age
The highway funding threat is how the U.S. government has been able to effectively enforce a national minimum drinking age for nearly 30 years. But on Thursday the Supreme Court declared that withholding money from states as a punishment for not doing what the federal government wants is unconstitutional. Federal aides and lawmakers immediately voiced concern that the new stance could reignite such fights as the drinking-age battle, not to mention No Child Left Behind, which also withholds funds from noncompliant states. If a case like the one South Dakota pursued against the drinking age act in 1987 were pursued now, using the health-care decision as precedent, the outcome might be different.