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.

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