4 ms·
> 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
by chimeracoder 8y ago
> 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...
(IANAL).
IIRC, that's done by allowing states to set their own drinking age, but withholding federal funds for highways unless the drinking age is at least 21. So any state could set a lower drinking age, legally, but they'd be on the hook for making up the difference in funds from their own budget.
That said, the combination of this decision and the ACA ruling that the federal government couldn't withhold funds from non-participating states may provide ground for a challenge to that law.
- sedeki 8y agoWhat does IANAL stand for? I don’t dare to google for it at work.
- tashoecraft 8y agoI am not a lawyer
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- darkarmani 8y agoWhat stops states from deciding not to enforce a over 21 limit? They still would have the law on the books.
- tathougies 8y agoNothing. In the same way that states like California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, and others have legalized marijuana. Marijuana is still technically illegal, but the federal government has no authority to regulate commerce within the state, and there is no law that stops the flow of federal funds for states which legalize marijuana, in the way that there are laws withholding funding for states that legalize alcohol below 21 years old.