3 ms·

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 rea

• 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.