5 ms·

This is super interesting. Seems like the real ruling is that the federal government can’t compel states to implement/enforce non-federal laws. I wonder if that

This is super interesting. Seems like the real ruling is that the federal government can’t compel states to implement/enforce non-federal laws. I wonder if that will affect things like the drinking age...

Simulacra 8y ago
Or marriage iguana !
arkades 8y ago
That's a bit off. The question in this case was regarding a federal law that "prohibits modification or repeal of state-law prohibitions." In short, "we are making a law that says you have to make a law." It's not about using the states to act as enforcement of federal laws, or to comply with federal laws - it's about commandeering their regulatory authority. And, I'd say correctly, the regulatory powers reserved to the states belong to, explicitly, the states. SCOTUS was quite correct in breaking this in half.
rory096 8y ago
For what it's worth, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was upheld by the Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Dole (1987), a case referenced extensively in the more recent NFIB v. Sebelius, the Obamacare challenge. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebelius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Indepen...
Eridrus 8y ago
This feels like a pretty weird ruling that is all about the details of how the federal law was enacted, rather than the intent, i.e. if the folks writing the 1992 law were told of this ruling they probably could have written a law that achieved the desired results and not run afoul of this ruling.
- Steel_Phoenix 8y ago
  That's the way it's supposed to work. The Supreme Court isn't interested in whether a law is effective, just whether it exceeds Constitutional restrictions on power. It's up to Congress to make sure things work, and if the court breaks something, Congress can often just rewrite things in a bit less heavy handed fashion and get things working again.
  - Eridrus 8y ago
    I guess, my argument would be that the Supreme Court should look at "would a law with this same intent/effect pass constitutional muster if written differently? and how meaningful would the differences be". Otherwise this is just a game of legal gotcha that gives more power to the Supreme Court than it should really have.
    - Steel_Phoenix 8y ago
      And what then? We can't have them rewriting, or even reinterpreting it, that would be a huge increase to their power. We can't have them just saying it's fine because if it were different it would be fine. It does matter how it was enacted and under whose authority. If we let that slide even a little bit, we'll immediately have power struggles between competing authorities. I doubt the people who wrote the law that is now being shot down would want the court operating differently, though they might not like the decision.
      - Eridrus 8y ago
        > And what then? We can't have them rewriting, or even reinterpreting it, that would be a huge increase to their power. But it is already up to the courts to interpret the law. I really don't think it's a stretch to say "look, we think this law was written poorly, but we think that this part of the law could have been written just fine, so we're going to go with that".
        Steel_Phoenix 8y ago
ksherlock 8y ago
The drinking age is 92% state law. However, the federal government will withhold some (8%) highway funds for states that allow the purchase and possession (but not necessarily consumption) under 21.

Simulacra 8y ago

Or marriage iguana !

arkades 8y ago

That's a bit off. The question in this case was regarding a federal law that "prohibits modification or repeal of state-law prohibitions." In short, "we are making a law that says you have to make a law." It's not about using the states to act as enforcement of federal laws, or to comply with federal laws - it's about commandeering their regulatory authority. And, I'd say correctly, the regulatory powers reserved to the states belong to, explicitly, the states. SCOTUS was quite correct in breaking this in half.

rory096 8y ago

For what it's worth, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was upheld by the Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Dole (1987), a case referenced extensively in the more recent NFIB v. Sebelius, the Obamacare challenge. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebelius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Indepen...

Eridrus 8y ago

This feels like a pretty weird ruling that is all about the details of how the federal law was enacted, rather than the intent, i.e. if the folks writing the 1992 law were told of this ruling they probably could have written a law that achieved the desired results and not run afoul of this ruling.

Steel_Phoenix 8y ago
That's the way it's supposed to work. The Supreme Court isn't interested in whether a law is effective, just whether it exceeds Constitutional restrictions on power. It's up to Congress to make sure things work, and if the court breaks something, Congress can often just rewrite things in a bit less heavy handed fashion and get things working again.
- Eridrus 8y ago
  I guess, my argument would be that the Supreme Court should look at "would a law with this same intent/effect pass constitutional muster if written differently? and how meaningful would the differences be". Otherwise this is just a game of legal gotcha that gives more power to the Supreme Court than it should really have.
  - Steel_Phoenix 8y ago
    And what then? We can't have them rewriting, or even reinterpreting it, that would be a huge increase to their power. We can't have them just saying it's fine because if it were different it would be fine. It does matter how it was enacted and under whose authority. If we let that slide even a little bit, we'll immediately have power struggles between competing authorities. I doubt the people who wrote the law that is now being shot down would want the court operating differently, though they might not like the decision.
    - Eridrus 8y ago
      > And what then? We can't have them rewriting, or even reinterpreting it, that would be a huge increase to their power. But it is already up to the courts to interpret the law. I really don't think it's a stretch to say "look, we think this law was written poorly, but we think that this part of the law could have been written just fine, so we're going to go with that".
      - Steel_Phoenix 8y ago

ksherlock 8y ago

The drinking age is 92% state law. However, the federal government will withhold some (8%) highway funds for states that allow the purchase and possession (but not necessarily consumption) under 21.