In the case of federal versus states' rights: the drinking age at 21, the federal government did not abuse its power. They were completely in the right when it came to establishing a national drinking age. "Congress has provided states with a large incentive to legislate a minimum drinking age of 21 within their borders." The government in no way used out right coercion to get the states to agree to this mandate. Congress was completely within their power under the 21st amendment and under article one section eight clause one. They were only trying to "provide for the..general welfare of the states". They were thinking about the general welfare of the whole country when they added the incentive of federal highway funds to changing the drinking age. They claimed, which reasonable people would agree, that the connection be highway safety and a uniform drinking age of 21 was direct. Though it wasn't accepted by everyone it certainly was a step in the right direction and a step hat was completely in bound of the powers of congress. It's not an abuse of power when the result is positive for the whole country.
I agree with Blair; In this case, the federal government did not abuse its power. Congress did not violate the 21st amendment, nor did it infringe upon its power stated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution. They were effectively and properly using the power that was granted to them. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 provided for the "general welfare of the states." According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, Congress had encouraged young people to collaborate desire with ability when dealing with alcohol and driving. Rehnquist also believed that in order to successfully come to a conclusion, the federal government must be involved. Ergo, successfully using Congress' power to provide for the overall well-being and protection of not only the state but for the country as a whole as well. The national government used incentives to urge the states to comply to this mandate; they did not use outright coercion. Therefore, not taking advantage of the powers given to the federal government.
In the first part of the article, it is stated that "the federal court ruled against South Dakota, and they appealed to the Supreme Court." This statement supports the sentence directly above that says, "The legislation was passed by Congress with little opposition... the legislation required that the states set a minimum drinking age of 21." These facts clearly show that the national government abused its power versus the states' rights. They forced their power and authority toward making the states raise the drinking age; "The Supreme Court rejected South Dakota's argument and ruled in favor of the law by a vote of 7-2." Since the law was passed, the federal government had clearly gotten their way, with no help to the states. The states still continued to be under federal control. The federal government also continued to make rulings over what may be best for the states.
I agree, along with Blair and Tess that the federal government did not abuse its powers. The Congressmen, thinking primarily for the country, were accurate when they voted to create a national drinking age. Without violating the 21st Amendment, Congress simply gave the states an ultimatum using unfunded mandate that gives the federal government the right to cut funding to any state that does not do something asked by Congress. In this case, Congress had the right to cut funding to any state that did not wish to change their drinking age. The states were not forced into a national drinking age, however Congress' use of the unfunded mandate gave each state an incentive for passing the law. Congress believed that with each state having their own drinking age it would combine young persons' "desire to drink with their ability to drive..." thus increasing the amount of accidents among drunk drivers sometimes leading to death. In this case, Congress was simply looking after what was best for the citizens and was in no way abusing its powers.
Like Blair and Tess said, the federal government did not abuse its power. Creating a nationwide drinking age, the age of 21, was completely understandable and constitutional. Congress has the right to create laws that are "necessary and proper," and raising the drinking age to 21 abided by the rules.
Congress not only has the right to create laws that are "necessary and proper," they have the right to make laws that "promote the general welfare." Increasing the drinking age would decrease the risk of drunk driving incidents that are most common among teenagers, resulting in fewer deaths. Congress has a duty to look out for the safety and caution of others, and raising the drinking age is one of the many examples of providing for the "general welfare."
While proposing that the drinking age to be raised to 21, Congress told the states that if they did not abide by this law, their federal highway funds would be decreased. The states argued that the national government did not have the right to instate such an ultimatum. However, the national government, again, was looking out for the general welfare of the citizens especially because of their worry that adolescents who would "combine their desire to drink with their ability to drive." Undoubtedly, this interstate problem required a national solution, and raising the drinking age was a perfectly acceptable and constitutional way of fixing this problem.
I agree with the majority thus far in believing the federal government, in this case, did not abuse its power. Congress was only trying to fulfill their duty to, "provide for the... general welfare of the states." While some will argue that the federal government forced the increase of the drinking age upon the states, that opinion is simply incorrect. As expressed in the article, it is the right of a sovereign state to set their drinking age. Therefore, if a state finds that they do not agree with the national government's opinion, they, "can still set [their] own minimum drinking age within [their] own borders." The government did, in no way, demand that the age be changed. No form of "outright coercion" took place. They simply encouraged the change. There was no iron fist to enforce the alteration of the drinking age. Instead, the need to change the drinking age was addressed by the government using "powerful incentive". The incentive, in this instance, being the states federal highway aid. For this reason, I believe that the federal government did not abuse their power in any way.
I agree with several of the previous answers: In instating a federal drinking age, Congress did not violate either the Constitution, nor states' rights.
It is true that no where in the Constitution is the explicit power to set the drinking age given to Congress. However, Congress was able to support this legislation by citing Art 1, Sec 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution which gives it the power to "collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare". While some would argue that this particular clause is too unrelated to justify a national drinking age, I would argue that sometimes Congress is forced to intercede in an issue which effects the welfare of the people, as the welfare of the states and people falls under its jurisdiction. The most famous examples are the Civil Rights Acts. While justifying the extension of Congressional power to include control over segregation is vague, at best, this was also an issue in which the states' did not act in the best interests of the people and therefore Congress chose to act instead.
Also, Congress, if it is able to take power anytime it feels the people's welfare is jepordized, will still not be able throw off the balance of dual sovereignty or gain too much power thanks to the system of checks and balances. The Supreme Court is the check to Congress's power and therefore, if Congress claims to act in the best interests of the people, the Supreme Court will ensure it does, as it did in this case.
Another key issue in relating to drinking age limits is the concept of direct vs. indirect legislature. Congress did not coerce the states into changing the drinking age. In fact, it did not even threaten their entire federal budget for roads, but rather chose to lower the budgets over a period of several years, beginning at lowering by 5% and then working it's way up. The states' rights were not violated because they had the power to chose whether or not to obey the federal command. Under the 21st Amendment, Congress could not directly control alcohol. However, Congress did not attempt to. Rather, it chose to give the states a series of options and let them make their own decision, an example of indirect legislature.
I agree with several of the previous answers: In instating a federal drinking age, Congress did not violate either the Constitution, nor states' rights.
It is true that no where in the Constitution is the explicit power to set the drinking age given to Congress. However, Congress was able to support this legislation by citing Art 1, Sec 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution which gives it the power to "collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare". While some would argue that this particular clause is too unrelated to justify a national drinking age, I would argue that sometimes Congress is forced to intercede in an issue which effects the welfare of the people, as the welfare of the states and people falls under its jurisdiction. The most famous examples are the Civil Rights Acts. While justifying the extension of Congressional power to include control over segregation is vague, at best, this was also an issue in which the states' did not act in the best interests of the people and therefore Congress chose to act instead.
Also, Congress, if it is able to take power anytime it feels the people's welfare is jepordized, will still not be able throw off the balance of dual sovereignty or gain too much power thanks to the system of checks and balances. The Supreme Court is the check to Congress's power and therefore, if Congress claims to act in the best interests of the people, the Supreme Court will ensure it does, as it did in this case.
Another key issue in relating to drinking age limits is the concept of direct vs. indirect legislature. Congress did not coerce the states into changing the drinking age. In fact, it did not even threaten their entire federal budget for roads, but rather chose to lower the budgets over a period of several years, beginning at lowering by 5% and then working it's way up. The states' rights were not violated because they had the power to chose whether or not to obey the federal command. Under the 21st Amendment, Congress could not directly control alcohol. However, Congress did not attempt to. Rather, it chose to give the states a series of options and let them make their own decision, an example of indirect legislature.
In the issue of having a national drinking age of 21 the Federal government did not abuse its power. Article 1, section 8, clause 1, of the 21st amendment grants Congress the power to ""provide for the... general welfare of the States."" Congress knew that people who opposed it would deem it "an unconstitutional infringement of the state's rights for the federal government to pass a bill setting a national drinking age." Therefore Congress attached conditions to the federal highway funds. These ""conditions"" "refer to provisions requiring that state or local units of government follow certain policies in order to receive federal money". The law stipulated that states set a minimum drinking age of 21 or loose 10 percent of their federal highway aid. Congress did not force the states to raise their drinking age to 21. If it is such an important issue for the states they still had the ability to set it at whatever age they want. By doing this congress does not infringe upon the 10th amendment which reserves certain powers to the states.
People who said that the federal government abused their powers believed that the federal government used an "unrelated part of the constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1," Again this states that congress has the power to provide for the general welfare of the states. The facts were that "In the early 80's the U.S surgeon General's office reported that the average life span of a U.S citizen was increasing for all ages except those under 21. They also reported that the leading cause of death for this age group was drunk driving." States reacted to the logic of "Old enough to fight, old enough to drink", and therefore lowered their drinking age. The results were that different states now had different drinking ages. Teens would then drive to different states so that they could drink and would attempt to drive home intoxicated which resulted in many traffic deaths. These problems and consequences justified congress's use of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, the power to provide for the general welfare.
In the end congress used one of its delegated powers to pass a law. The way in which they did it was constitutional and did not infringe upon state rights.
I disagree with the majority. The founders of the Constitution originally instituted a government where certain powers are given to the national government and certain powers are given to the state government. Therefore, this changing of the drinking age, to all of the states, is a violation to the tenth amendment. The tenth amendment gives reserved powers to the states. “The State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by the ratification of the Constitution exclusively delegated to the states,” said Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist No. 32. Changing the drinking age tampers with the 21st amendment, which is “ The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use of therein of intoxicating liquors, in the violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.” Also, the way the government changed the drinking age was not handled in the highest respect. It was very unfair for the government to take away 10 percent of the states federal highway aid to force the states to comply. This shows how the federal government circumvented states’ rights by using economic pressure to force states to raise the drinking age. The government should not hide behind article 1, section 8, clause 1(general welfare). If they felt that it was in the best interest of the public, to raise the drinking age to 21. They should have proposed a constitutional amendment, not leveraged highway funds to accomplish their goal.
I agree with those who said that congress was within its power to mandate a national drinking age. When it came to raising the national drinking age to 21, congress did not force state governments to oblige. States were still entitled to set their own drinking age. Chief justice Rehnquist said " Congress has offered relatively mild encouragement to the states to enact higher minimum drinking ages than they would otherwise choose." While it was perfectly constitutional for congress to encourage states to raise the drinking age, their actions were justified by Article I, Section 8, Clause I. This provision grants congress the power to "provide for the..general welfare of the states." Raising the national drinking age was in the best interest of the country because according to studies the major cause of death for individuals under 21 was traffic accidents due to alcohol consumption. When Americans are harming themselves as well as others it is the duty of the government to step in. Having a natoinal drinking age discouraged teens from going to one state to drink and driving back drunk. If it was not in the best interest of the country congress could have been abusing its power. However, states were never stripped of their right to set their own drinking age they were just encouraged to comply with the national standard on an issue that was important to the well being of our citizens.
In my opinion, the federal government did not abuse its power under the 21st Amendment; it has used the power to "provide for the common Defense and the general welfare of the states". The argument was that when the people's welfare is jeopardized, in this case is the problem with the drinking age, the federal government has the right to set up the law. For the oppositions who claimed that Congress has violated states' right, the Supreme Court will make sure that it does what it is supposed to. In this situation, the Court has made a decision in favor of Congress. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, Congress had addressed the problem of underage drinking as a "dangerous situation" to the general welfare.
One more proof that Congress did not abuse its power is that it used unfunded mandate in order to force the states into making the legislature. Congress did not issue a law setting up the drinking age of 21; it rather threatened to cut off a percentage of the federal highway aid every year if the states do not set the minimum drinking age of 21. Its reason was that there is a connection between highway safety and the uniform minimum drinking age. The key problem is that states did not have to set the drinking age as the federal government wanted; they would lose federal money if they did not do so. It means that Congress did not violated the 10th Amendment, which granted powers to the states. By not using the outright coercion, Congress did not infringe upon the Constitution, but it still persuaded the states to make the legislature.
I agree with the majority of my fellow classmates that the federal goverment does not abuse its power. When making this argument there are two key factors to focus on the 21st amendment, and Congreses constitutional power in Article I Section 8, Clause 1. IN 1984 the legislation required that states set a minimum drinking age of 21 or else they would lose ten percent of all highway funds. Section 2 in the 21st amendment gives the states the right to determine alcohol laws for there state. Now Congress is not saying that you have to or you must change the minimum drinking age to 21 they are jsut saying if you don't you will lose ten percent of highway funds. The desicion is still ultimatly up to the states, and even though it is not the most professional way to go about things by Congress that does not mean it is abusing their power. Next arguemnt is Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 grants congress the powerto "provide for the general welfare of the states".Chied Justice Rehnquist said that this interstate problem required a national solution, and that this was a dangerous situation, and that the descision was made to advance the the general welfare.Congress had many facts to back up it's desicion such as the elading cause of death in the early 1980's for people under the age of 21 was drunk driving. Teens would drive to other states just to drink, and would often times drive back home with alchohol in there system resulthing in many traffic deaths. All these facts point to that the desisicion was made for the saftey and general welfare of the citizens.
The federal government did not abuse its power in the national law that established the drinking age at 21. It would be foolish for skeptics of this law to assert that the government abused its powers, especially given the arguments critics of the law use to justify their case.
Skeptics point to the notion that the 21st Amendment prohibits such an action on the part of the federal government. However, such an Amendment, adopted in the 1930's, was specifically intended to reverse Prohbition and undo the ban on sale of alcoholic beverages that had marked much of the 1920's. Claiming that this Amendment could be cited as a means to criticize setting this law was wrongheaded on the part of South Dakota in the 1980's.
However, critics of government power in this instance of setting the drinking age have a broader, more fundamental misconception of the proper role of the federal government. The preamble to the Constitution and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 both clearly define "promoting the general welfare" of the people as a chief objective of the national government. The Surgeon General's office found in the early 1980's that drunk driving was "the leading cause of death" for those under the age of 21 and it is undeniable that ultimately drunk driving threatens not only the drinker's life yet potentially that of another driver. Therefore, it is a dilemma in which the national government has every right to promote the general welfare by making stricter laws such as establishing the minimum drinking age. Even the late right-of-center Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, first appointed by President Nixon, and conservative Republcan President Ronald Reagan agree that this law does not represent an abuse of federal power.
Most importantly, the premable states that the national government must work to "ensure domestic tranquility." Such a concept derives from the view of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, framers of the Federaist Papers and the latter the father of the Constitution essentially, that an inherently strong national government would be necessary to establish order and prevent chaos in society. Clearly, drunk driving is an impediment to order, civility, and tranqulity in an America that is intended to reflect all three of these qualities. It causes roads to be unsafe territories for the public at large, is a defining aspect of troubles for modern youth, and could potentially kill the driver and innocent victims. As a result, it is clear the national government had authority in the 1980's to properly step in to assure that domestic tranqulity--and promoting and providing for the general welfare--was in order.
I agree with the majority of the class. The federal government did not abuse its power when creating a nationwide drinking age of 21. Creating a national drinking age was constitutional because the federal government did not coerce the states into following this law. Instead, there was an incentive which stated: "that states set a minimum drinking age of 21 or lose 10% of their federal highway aid."
Creating this incentive was not unconstitutional; Congress had the right to make laws that were "necessary and proper". Additionally, they could make laws that could " promote for the general welfare." For example, the leading cause of death for Americans under the age of 21 in the 1980s, was drunk driving. In order to prevent accidents in the future, the federal government wanted to create a uniform minimum drinking age. "This was the general welfare that Congress had in mind when it attached the "conditions" onto the receipt of federal highway funds." Additionally, the Federal government had the right to use its power in this situation because this was "an interstate problem" -teens were driving to and from states while intoxicated.
If the federal government had only passed a bill setting a national drinking age, it would have been "an unconstitutional infringement" of the states right. States, could have argued that the tenth amendment reserves certain powers to the states - and that states are in charge of what happens within their borders. However,by creating the incentive, the national government gave the states a choice on whether to abide by the new rule.
In regard to the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, Congress did not legally abuse its power, and the act was not unconstitutional. It is completely within the rights of Congress to "provide for the ...general welfare of the states," as well as to decide how federal highway funds should be distributed.
I do, however, personally believe that Congress abused its power in that this law violates the spirit of the Constitution. Though the federal government is not giving the states a direct order to change their drinking age to 21, it is punishing them if they do not, by taking away 10% of their federal highway funds. It is understandable to give an additional 10% to states that change their drinking age to 21, because that rewards states who comply with the desires of Congress and does not affect those states that wish to keep their drinking age at 18 without consequences. Just because Congress legally has the power to do something does not mean that what they do is right.
16 comments:
In the case of federal versus states' rights: the drinking age at 21, the federal government did not abuse its power. They were completely in the right when it came to establishing a national drinking age. "Congress has provided states with a large incentive to legislate a minimum drinking age of 21 within their borders." The government in no way used out right coercion to get the states to agree to this mandate. Congress was completely within their power under the 21st amendment and under article one section eight clause one. They were only trying to "provide for the..general welfare of the states". They were thinking about the general welfare of the whole country when they added the incentive of federal highway funds to changing the drinking age. They claimed, which reasonable people would agree, that the connection be highway safety and a uniform drinking age of 21 was direct. Though it wasn't accepted by everyone it certainly was a step in the right direction and a step hat was completely in bound of the powers of congress. It's not an abuse of power when the result is positive for the whole country.
I agree with Blair; In this case, the federal government did not abuse its power. Congress did not violate the 21st amendment, nor did it infringe upon its power stated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution. They were effectively and properly using the power that was granted to them. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 provided for the "general welfare of the states." According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, Congress had encouraged young people to collaborate desire with ability when dealing with alcohol and driving. Rehnquist also believed that in order to successfully come to a conclusion, the federal government must be involved. Ergo, successfully using Congress' power to provide for the overall well-being and protection of not only the state but for the country as a whole as well. The national government used incentives to urge the states to comply to this mandate; they did not use outright coercion. Therefore, not taking advantage of the powers given to the federal government.
In the first part of the article, it is stated that "the federal court ruled against South Dakota, and they appealed to the Supreme Court." This statement supports the sentence directly above that says, "The legislation was passed by Congress with little opposition... the legislation required that the states set a minimum drinking age of 21." These facts clearly show that the national government abused its power versus the states' rights. They forced their power and authority toward making the states raise the drinking age; "The Supreme Court rejected South Dakota's argument and ruled in favor of the law by a vote of 7-2." Since the law was passed, the federal government had clearly gotten their way, with no help to the states. The states still continued to be under federal control. The federal government also continued to make rulings over what may be best for the states.
I agree, along with Blair and Tess that the federal government did not abuse its powers. The Congressmen, thinking primarily for the country, were accurate when they voted to create a national drinking age. Without violating the 21st Amendment, Congress simply gave the states an ultimatum using unfunded mandate that gives the federal government the right to cut funding to any state that does not do something asked by Congress. In this case, Congress had the right to cut funding to any state that did not wish to change their drinking age. The states were not forced into a national drinking age, however Congress' use of the unfunded mandate gave each state an incentive for passing the law. Congress believed that with each state having their own drinking age it would combine young persons' "desire to drink with their ability to drive..." thus increasing the amount of accidents among drunk drivers sometimes leading to death. In this case, Congress was simply looking after what was best for the citizens and was in no way abusing its powers.
Like Blair and Tess said, the federal government did not abuse its power. Creating a nationwide drinking age, the age of 21, was completely understandable and constitutional. Congress has the right to create laws that are "necessary and proper," and raising the drinking age to 21 abided by the rules.
Congress not only has the right to create laws that are "necessary and proper," they have the right to make laws that "promote the general welfare." Increasing the drinking age would decrease the risk of drunk driving incidents that are most common among teenagers, resulting in fewer deaths. Congress has a duty to look out for the safety and caution of others, and raising the drinking age is one of the many examples of providing for the "general welfare."
While proposing that the drinking age to be raised to 21, Congress told the states that if they did not abide by this law, their federal highway funds would be decreased. The states argued that the national government did not have the right to instate such an ultimatum. However, the national government, again, was looking out for the general welfare of the citizens especially because of their worry that adolescents who would "combine their desire to drink with their ability to drive." Undoubtedly, this interstate problem required a national solution, and raising the drinking age was a perfectly acceptable and constitutional way of fixing this problem.
I agree with the majority thus far in believing the federal government, in this case, did not abuse its power. Congress was only trying to fulfill their duty to, "provide for the... general welfare of the states." While some will argue that the federal government forced the increase of the drinking age upon the states, that opinion is simply incorrect. As expressed in the article, it is the right of a sovereign state to set their drinking age. Therefore, if a state finds that they do not agree with the national government's opinion, they, "can still set [their] own minimum drinking age within [their] own borders." The government did, in no way, demand that the age be changed. No form of "outright coercion" took place. They simply encouraged the change. There was no iron fist to enforce the alteration of the drinking age. Instead, the need to change the drinking age was addressed by the government using "powerful incentive". The incentive, in this instance, being the states federal highway aid. For this reason, I believe that the federal government did not abuse their power in any way.
I agree with several of the previous answers: In instating a federal drinking age, Congress did not violate either the Constitution, nor states' rights.
It is true that no where in the Constitution is the explicit power to set the drinking age given to Congress. However, Congress was able to support this legislation by citing Art 1, Sec 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution which gives it the power to "collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare". While some would argue that this particular clause is too unrelated to justify a national drinking age, I would argue that sometimes Congress is forced to intercede in an issue which effects the welfare of the people, as the welfare of the states and people falls under its jurisdiction. The most famous examples are the Civil Rights Acts. While justifying the extension of Congressional power to include control over segregation is vague, at best, this was also an issue in which the states' did not act in the best interests of the people and therefore Congress chose to act instead.
Also, Congress, if it is able to take power anytime it feels the people's welfare is jepordized, will still not be able throw off the balance of dual sovereignty or gain too much power thanks to the system of checks and balances. The Supreme Court is the check to Congress's power and therefore, if Congress claims to act in the best interests of the people, the Supreme Court will ensure it does, as it did in this case.
Another key issue in relating to drinking age limits is the concept of direct vs. indirect legislature. Congress did not coerce the states into changing the drinking age. In fact, it did not even threaten their entire federal budget for roads, but rather chose to lower the budgets over a period of several years, beginning at lowering by 5% and then working it's way up. The states' rights were not violated because they had the power to chose whether or not to obey the federal command. Under the 21st Amendment, Congress could not directly control alcohol. However, Congress did not attempt to. Rather, it chose to give the states a series of options and let them make their own decision, an example of indirect legislature.
I agree with several of the previous answers: In instating a federal drinking age, Congress did not violate either the Constitution, nor states' rights.
It is true that no where in the Constitution is the explicit power to set the drinking age given to Congress. However, Congress was able to support this legislation by citing Art 1, Sec 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution which gives it the power to "collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare". While some would argue that this particular clause is too unrelated to justify a national drinking age, I would argue that sometimes Congress is forced to intercede in an issue which effects the welfare of the people, as the welfare of the states and people falls under its jurisdiction. The most famous examples are the Civil Rights Acts. While justifying the extension of Congressional power to include control over segregation is vague, at best, this was also an issue in which the states' did not act in the best interests of the people and therefore Congress chose to act instead.
Also, Congress, if it is able to take power anytime it feels the people's welfare is jepordized, will still not be able throw off the balance of dual sovereignty or gain too much power thanks to the system of checks and balances. The Supreme Court is the check to Congress's power and therefore, if Congress claims to act in the best interests of the people, the Supreme Court will ensure it does, as it did in this case.
Another key issue in relating to drinking age limits is the concept of direct vs. indirect legislature. Congress did not coerce the states into changing the drinking age. In fact, it did not even threaten their entire federal budget for roads, but rather chose to lower the budgets over a period of several years, beginning at lowering by 5% and then working it's way up. The states' rights were not violated because they had the power to chose whether or not to obey the federal command. Under the 21st Amendment, Congress could not directly control alcohol. However, Congress did not attempt to. Rather, it chose to give the states a series of options and let them make their own decision, an example of indirect legislature.
In the issue of having a national drinking age of 21 the Federal government did not abuse its power. Article 1, section 8, clause 1, of the 21st amendment grants Congress the power to ""provide for the... general welfare of the States."" Congress knew that people who opposed it would deem it "an unconstitutional infringement of the state's rights for the federal government to pass a bill setting a national drinking age." Therefore Congress attached conditions to the federal highway funds. These ""conditions"" "refer to provisions requiring that state or local units of government follow certain policies in order to receive federal money". The law stipulated that states set a minimum drinking age of 21 or loose 10 percent of their federal highway aid. Congress did not force the states to raise their drinking age to 21. If it is such an important issue for the states they still had the ability to set it at whatever age they want. By doing this congress does not infringe upon the 10th amendment which reserves certain powers to the states.
People who said that the federal government abused their powers believed that the federal government used an "unrelated part of the constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1," Again this states that congress has the power to provide for the general welfare of the states. The facts were that "In the early 80's the U.S surgeon General's office reported that the average life span of a U.S citizen was increasing for all ages except those under 21. They also reported that the leading cause of death for this age group was drunk driving." States reacted to the logic of "Old enough to fight, old enough to drink", and therefore lowered their drinking age. The results were that different states now had different drinking ages. Teens would then drive to different states so that they could drink and would attempt to drive home intoxicated which resulted in many traffic deaths. These problems and consequences justified congress's use of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, the power to provide for the general welfare.
In the end congress used one of its delegated powers to pass a law. The way in which they did it was constitutional and did not infringe upon state rights.
I disagree with the majority. The founders of the Constitution originally instituted a government where certain powers are given to the national government and certain powers are given to the state government. Therefore, this changing of the drinking age, to all of the states, is a violation to the tenth amendment. The tenth amendment gives reserved powers to the states. “The State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by the ratification of the Constitution exclusively delegated to the states,” said Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist No. 32. Changing the drinking age tampers with the 21st amendment, which is “ The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use of therein of intoxicating liquors, in the violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.” Also, the way the government changed the drinking age was not handled in the highest respect. It was very unfair for the government to take away 10 percent of the states federal highway aid to force the states to comply. This shows how the federal government circumvented states’ rights by using economic pressure to force states to raise the drinking age. The government should not hide behind article 1, section 8, clause 1(general welfare). If they felt that it was in the best interest of the public, to raise the drinking age to 21. They should have proposed a constitutional amendment, not leveraged highway funds to accomplish their goal.
I agree with those who said that congress was within its power to mandate a national drinking age. When it came to raising the national drinking age to 21, congress did not force state governments to oblige. States were still entitled to set their own drinking age. Chief justice Rehnquist said " Congress has offered relatively mild encouragement to the states to enact higher minimum drinking ages than they would otherwise choose." While it was perfectly constitutional for congress to encourage states to raise the drinking age, their actions were justified by Article I, Section 8, Clause I. This provision grants congress the power to "provide for the..general welfare of the states." Raising the national drinking age was in the best interest of the country because according to studies the major cause of death for individuals under 21 was traffic accidents due to alcohol consumption. When Americans are harming themselves as well as others it is the duty of the government to step in. Having a natoinal drinking age discouraged teens from going to one state to drink and driving back drunk. If it was not in the best interest of the country congress could have been abusing its power. However, states were never stripped of their right to set their own drinking age they were just encouraged to comply with the national standard on an issue that was important to the well being of our citizens.
In my opinion, the federal government did not abuse its power under the 21st Amendment; it has used the power to "provide for the common Defense and the general welfare of the states". The argument was that when the people's welfare is jeopardized, in this case is the problem with the drinking age, the federal government has the right to set up the law. For the oppositions who claimed that Congress has violated states' right, the Supreme Court will make sure that it does what it is supposed to. In this situation, the Court has made a decision in favor of Congress. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, Congress had addressed the problem of underage drinking as a "dangerous situation" to the general welfare.
One more proof that Congress did not abuse its power is that it used unfunded mandate in order to force the states into making the legislature. Congress did not issue a law setting up the drinking age of 21; it rather threatened to cut off a percentage of the federal highway aid every year if the states do not set the minimum drinking age of 21. Its reason was that there is a connection between highway safety and the uniform minimum drinking age. The key problem is that states did not have to set the drinking age as the federal government wanted; they would lose federal money if they did not do so. It means that Congress did not violated the 10th Amendment, which granted powers to the states. By not using the outright coercion, Congress did not infringe upon the Constitution, but it still persuaded the states to make the legislature.
I agree with the majority of my fellow classmates that the federal goverment does not abuse its power. When making this argument there are two key factors to focus on the 21st amendment, and Congreses constitutional power in Article I Section 8, Clause 1. IN 1984 the legislation required that states set a minimum drinking age of 21 or else they would lose ten percent of all highway funds. Section 2 in the 21st amendment gives the states the right to determine alcohol laws for there state. Now Congress is not saying that you have to or you must change the minimum drinking age to 21 they are jsut saying if you don't you will lose ten percent of highway funds. The desicion is still ultimatly up to the states, and even though it is not the most professional way to go about things by Congress that does not mean it is abusing their power. Next arguemnt is Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 grants congress the powerto "provide for the general welfare of the states".Chied Justice Rehnquist said that this interstate problem required a national solution, and that this was a dangerous situation, and that the descision was made to advance the the general welfare.Congress had many facts to back up it's desicion such as the elading cause of death in the early 1980's for people under the age of 21 was drunk driving. Teens would drive to other states just to drink, and would often times drive back home with alchohol in there system resulthing in many traffic deaths. All these facts point to that the desisicion was made for the saftey and general welfare of the citizens.
The federal government did not abuse its power in the national law that established the drinking age at 21. It would be foolish for skeptics of this law to assert that the government abused its powers, especially given the arguments critics of the law use to justify their case.
Skeptics point to the notion that the 21st Amendment prohibits such an action on the part of the federal government. However, such an Amendment, adopted in the 1930's, was specifically intended to reverse Prohbition and undo the ban on sale of alcoholic beverages that had marked much of the 1920's. Claiming that this Amendment could be cited as a means to criticize setting this law was wrongheaded on the part of South Dakota in the 1980's.
However, critics of government power in this instance of setting the drinking age have a broader, more fundamental misconception of the proper role of the federal government. The preamble to the Constitution and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 both clearly define "promoting the general welfare" of the people as a chief objective of the national government. The Surgeon General's office found in the early 1980's that drunk driving was "the leading cause of death" for those under the age of 21 and it is undeniable that ultimately drunk driving threatens not only the drinker's life yet potentially that of another driver. Therefore, it is a dilemma in which the national government has every right to promote the general welfare by making stricter laws such as establishing the minimum drinking age. Even the late right-of-center Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, first appointed by President Nixon, and conservative Republcan President Ronald Reagan agree that this law does not represent an abuse of federal power.
Most importantly, the premable states that the national government must work to "ensure domestic tranquility." Such a concept derives from the view of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, framers of the Federaist Papers and the latter the father of the Constitution essentially, that an inherently strong national government would be necessary to establish order and prevent chaos in society. Clearly, drunk driving is an impediment to order, civility, and tranqulity in an America that is intended to reflect all three of these qualities. It causes roads to be unsafe territories for the public at large, is a defining aspect of troubles for modern youth, and could potentially kill the driver and innocent victims. As a result, it is clear the national government had authority in the 1980's to properly step in to assure that domestic tranqulity--and promoting and providing for the general welfare--was in order.
I agree with the majority of the class. The federal government did not abuse its power when creating a nationwide drinking age of 21. Creating a national drinking age was constitutional because the federal government did not coerce the states into following this law. Instead, there was an incentive which stated: "that states set a minimum drinking age of 21 or lose 10% of their federal highway aid."
Creating this incentive was not unconstitutional; Congress had the right to make laws that were "necessary and proper". Additionally, they could make laws that could " promote for the general welfare." For example, the leading cause of death for Americans under the age of 21 in the 1980s, was drunk driving. In order to prevent accidents in the future, the federal government wanted to create a uniform minimum drinking age. "This was the general welfare that Congress had in mind when it attached the "conditions" onto the receipt of federal highway funds." Additionally, the Federal government had the right to use its power in this situation because this was "an interstate problem" -teens were driving to and from states while intoxicated.
If the federal government had only passed a bill setting a national drinking age, it would have been "an unconstitutional infringement" of the states right. States, could have argued that the tenth amendment reserves certain powers to the states - and that states are in charge of what happens within their borders. However,by creating the incentive, the national government gave the states a choice on whether to abide by the new rule.
In regard to the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, Congress did not legally abuse its power, and the act was not unconstitutional. It is completely within the rights of Congress to "provide for the ...general welfare of the states," as well as to decide how federal highway funds should be distributed.
I do, however, personally believe that Congress abused its power in that this law violates the spirit of the Constitution. Though the federal government is not giving the states a direct order to change their drinking age to 21, it is punishing them if they do not, by taking away 10% of their federal highway funds. It is understandable to give an additional 10% to states that change their drinking age to 21, because that rewards states who comply with the desires of Congress and does not affect those states that wish to keep their drinking age at 18 without consequences. Just because Congress legally has the power to do something does not mean that what they do is right.
Post a Comment