4 ms·

> drinking ages The federal government used a bit of a loophole here. Instead of regulating individual states, they simply set a drinking age of 21 as a requi

by ivl 8y ago

> drinking ages The federal government used a bit of a loophole here. Instead of regulating individual states, they simply set a drinking age of 21 as a requirement, else they'll lose 10 percent of their federal highway funds.

jessriedel 8y ago
...hence the rest of my sentence? Or are you just clarifying for other people?
- ivl 8y ago
  Purely clarifying. It's kind of a unique tax incentive for the states isn't it? I'm not sure of other legislation that works under the same principles.
  - dzdt 8y ago
    Education law. The federal government is requiring states to comply with its mandates or lose funding.
    - kgwgk 8y ago
      Also Medicaid expansion.
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    Just highway funds have been used by the federal government to enforce two other rules on the states: speed limits and motorcycle helmets. There have been attempts to also make national no-texting-and-driving rules. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-times-the-government-held-highway-funding-hostage/454167/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-ti... Trump has tried to restrict federal funding to "sanctuary cities" as a way to coerce them into prosecuting illegal immigrants. It was struck down as not passing the South Dakota test, but he may try again. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-executive-order-sanctuary-cities-funding-federal-judge-ruling-1.4085685 http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-executive-order-sanctuary... The federal government also prohibits states from stopping federal funding of Planed Parenthood, which arguably cross-subsidizes (though does not directly fund) abortion. https://qz.com/863101/title-x-obama-enacts-a-law-mandating-that-states-cannot-withhold-federal-funds-from-planned-parenthood/ https://qz.com/863101/title-x-obama-enacts-a-law-mandating-t...
    - chipperyman573 8y ago
      >South Dakota test What's this? Google just returns a bunch of results for the South Dakota DMV exam.
      - makomk 8y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole I think.
      - jessriedel 8y ago
        Sorry, that's not standard terminology, I just used it because the case was discussed elsewhere in the thread. See the 5-point test here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole#Decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole#Decision
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
d0lph 8y ago
That always seemed wrong to me, isn't politics about the separation of powers, why do we allow them to exert control like that?
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  Because most people look the other way when it's something they agree with.
- Kalium 8y ago
  Congress has the power of controlling funding they choose to hand out, and this doesn't meet the test of being "irresistibly coercive" to states. And states really want that highway funding...
  - d0lph 8y ago
    Wouldn't you expect to see some states to not comply then? Interesting case law the above poster is referencing I think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole Notably one of the dissenting judges said this: "establishment of a minimum drinking age of 21 is not sufficiently related to interstate highway construction to justify so conditioning funds appropriated for that purpose." It did however pass the supreme court at 7-2.
    - Kalium 8y ago
      > Wouldn't you expect to see some states to not comply then? Not necessarily. Pretty much every state had to ask themselves the same question: "Do we care more about highway funding or the very small number of people 18-21 who vote?" It's actually a very easy question in political calculus terms.
  - gowld 8y ago
    It's still clearly bad law, a ruling that's more based in the power politics of Legistative vs Judiciary, and Federal vs State, than it is about logic of Constitutional analysis.
- 8y ago

by ivl 8y ago

jessriedel 8y ago

...hence the rest of my sentence? Or are you just clarifying for other people?

ivl 8y ago
Purely clarifying. It's kind of a unique tax incentive for the states isn't it? I'm not sure of other legislation that works under the same principles.
- dzdt 8y ago
  Education law. The federal government is requiring states to comply with its mandates or lose funding.
  - kgwgk 8y ago
    Also Medicaid expansion.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  Just highway funds have been used by the federal government to enforce two other rules on the states: speed limits and motorcycle helmets. There have been attempts to also make national no-texting-and-driving rules. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-times-the-government-held-highway-funding-hostage/454167/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-ti... Trump has tried to restrict federal funding to "sanctuary cities" as a way to coerce them into prosecuting illegal immigrants. It was struck down as not passing the South Dakota test, but he may try again. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-executive-order-sanctuary-cities-funding-federal-judge-ruling-1.4085685 http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-executive-order-sanctuary... The federal government also prohibits states from stopping federal funding of Planed Parenthood, which arguably cross-subsidizes (though does not directly fund) abortion. https://qz.com/863101/title-x-obama-enacts-a-law-mandating-that-states-cannot-withhold-federal-funds-from-planned-parenthood/ https://qz.com/863101/title-x-obama-enacts-a-law-mandating-t...
  - chipperyman573 8y ago
    >South Dakota test What's this? Google just returns a bunch of results for the South Dakota DMV exam.
    - makomk 8y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole I think.
    - jessriedel 8y ago
      Sorry, that's not standard terminology, I just used it because the case was discussed elsewhere in the thread. See the 5-point test here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole#Decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole#Decision
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

d0lph 8y ago

That always seemed wrong to me, isn't politics about the separation of powers, why do we allow them to exert control like that?

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
Because most people look the other way when it's something they agree with.
Kalium 8y ago
Congress has the power of controlling funding they choose to hand out, and this doesn't meet the test of being "irresistibly coercive" to states. And states really want that highway funding...
- d0lph 8y ago
  Wouldn't you expect to see some states to not comply then? Interesting case law the above poster is referencing I think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole Notably one of the dissenting judges said this: "establishment of a minimum drinking age of 21 is not sufficiently related to interstate highway construction to justify so conditioning funds appropriated for that purpose." It did however pass the supreme court at 7-2.
  - Kalium 8y ago
    > Wouldn't you expect to see some states to not comply then? Not necessarily. Pretty much every state had to ask themselves the same question: "Do we care more about highway funding or the very small number of people 18-21 who vote?" It's actually a very easy question in political calculus terms.
- gowld 8y ago
  It's still clearly bad law, a ruling that's more based in the power politics of Legistative vs Judiciary, and Federal vs State, than it is about logic of Constitutional analysis.
8y ago