The federal government was within its rights to change the minimum drinking age to 21. By restricting the states of their highway funds, the states all decided to change its drinking age. Some could view this as outright coercion, but the federal government was not required by the Constitution to give the states highway funds. By taking the funds away, the federal government is simply using powerful incentive. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government simply because there was nothing in the Constitution that opposed the idea. South Dakota stated Amendment 21 Article 2. This does not go beyond the constitutional power of the federal government, because this is far stretched from the issue of the minimum drinking age. Also because raising the drinking age reduced the number of deaths of teenagers by drunk driving, the federal government clearly helped the young people of America. Because the Constitution is written for the benefit of the people, the federal government did not abuse its power by changing the national drinking age.
The federal government did not abuse it's power by requiring the states set a minimum drinking age of 21. The federal government was looking out for the welfare of the country when setting this restriction. This can be seen when you consider that "the average life span of U.S. citizens was increasing for all age groups except those under 21." Also drunk driving was the leading cause of death among this under 21 age group. The federal government set this restriction in order to protect the general welfare of the under 21 age group. It was necessary for the national government to set the restriction instead of giving the power to the states because people would drive over state boarders in order to buy alcohol if there state's drinking age was lower than their own. The conditions set about the federal highway funds was valid because in the case of states having different drinking ages there was the concern of drunk driving and more alcohol related crashes.
I believe that the Federal government did abuse its power when it passed the Surface Transportation Act of 1982. Many who argue that there was no problem with its passing will reference Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 which states: "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises...to provide for the general welfare of the United States." I do not contend that the act went against this phrase, but rather a later phrase in the clause: "but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." In my opinion the Surface Transportation Act was not "uniform" for every state in the Union. For some years the Act punished states that wanted to keep their drinking age the same, and rewarded most states who changed the drinking age to 21. However, eventually no states could afford to disagree with the Federal government. In addition to this point I believe the Act was in clear conflict with the 21st Amendment. The amendment outlawed prohibition of alcohol; the Surface Transportation Act of 1982 essentially prohibited the use of alcohol by people from the ages 18 to 20. If the Federal government wanted to change this amendment, then the amendment process, a fair and especially federal process, should have been used.
In response to classmates arguing the merit behind the Surface Transportation Act, I do agree that the purpose of the Act was just. However it was a questionable Act and an abuse of power by the Federal Government.
In response to classmates arguing the abuse of the federal government's power, it is clear that progress was made with the passing of this law. The Supreme Court did what was right for the people and was just in passing the Surface Transportation Act. Clearly South Dakota's arguement was far fetched for this particular case.
The federal government did not abuse its power when the Surface Transportation Act was passed in 1982. Congress acted for the general welfare of the people because the death rate of people under age 21 was increasing. Drunk driving as the cause of death was at its highest point because more teenagers were drinking. Also, alcohol damages the human organs in teenagers quicker than people over 21, another reason to raise the legal drinking age. States that had different drinking ages were at fault for some accidents because teenagers would drive to that state in order to drink, then drive back to their own state drunk. By stating that states wouldn't receive highway funding if their drinking ages were not raised, they guaranteed that all states would comply because no state could afford to lose the funding. Although it was a stretch of governmental power, Congress made the right choice because the death rate of drunk driving involving teenagers has decreased.
I think that the national government made a better argument in favor of enforcing the law to increase the drinking age nationally. I agree that the federal government has the right to impose this law in this particular situation. The national government must do all it can to ensure "general welfare", because having a higher drinking age means less and more responsible drinkers, making the streets safer. Subsequently, under the elastic clause, the national government does have the right to impose this law. However, in instances where the federal government cannot find a constitutional reason to impose a law, it should not be imposed at all, whether excusing it as "powerful incentives" or otherwise, for this is infringing on states' rights. If powerful, it is manipulating a state's priorities in how that state is governed. Although I can reconcile with the state's argument, I have to say that the federal government made a better and perfectly excusable defense.
I believe that the federal government was completly within their own right to pass the Surface Transportation Act of 1982, thus they did not abuse their power. As many of my classmates have stated, Section 1 Section 8 Clause 1 clearly states the right for the federal government to "have the power to lay and collect...and provide for...general welfare of the United States." Because of this clause in the Constitution, the federal government did not abuse their power. The reason behind increasing the drinking age stems from one major issue concerning the citizens, driving. If the drinking age is lower in one state than another, young adults ages 18-20 will more than likely travel to states with lower drinking ages. Therefore, they are endangering the lives of others as well as endangering their own lives. I also believe that the "conditions" were added merely for the state governmenhts to pass the law in order not to take away money, but rather to ensure the lives of others.
In this particular example, the federal government did not abuse its power. The government was trying to fulfill its task of providing for the general welfare of the country. As the article stated, if some states had kept their drinking age at 18, it would simply encourage teenagers to drive more into states where they could drink, in the end promoting drunk driving.
Furthermore, in the Supreme Court Case NY v. U.S., the government was given the power to use powerful incentives if need be. Taking away 10% of highway funds definitely falls under this category, as well as connects to the issue in hopefully helping to lessen the number of drunk driving incidents.
I agree with Molly that the incentive to pass the new age limit was not put in place to try and take money away from the states, but to try and protect the lives of United States citizens.
As previously stated on numerous accounts earlier, Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 really does justify this act in my opionion at the national level. The national government's strongest arguement against the states was their facts. Leading cause of death for that age group is drunk driving, lower drinking ages in other states cause teens to drive there and then risk crashing while driving home after a long night of drinking, average life span for US citizens is increasing in every age group except those under 21; all of these facts strengthen the national government's arguement to pass a uniform drinking age. Ultimately, the set of facts the national government had put the states in a very difficult position to defend themselves, and led to the passage of the act.
The federal government did not abuse their power. As we discussed in class today, the federal government was using powerful incentive as Marco mentioned. The reason that what the federal government did was not outright coercion lies in the idea of conditions. Since the states were not already garaunteed this money, the federal government was not taking anything away from them. Therefore, making any argument using the tenth amendment, unjustifiable. As an aside, it must be taken into account that with a significant number of drivers unable to consume alcohol, the money needed for highway repair after an accident will undoubtedly decrease. The only other argument mentioned in the reading regarding the constitutionality of the act was South Dakota citing Section 2 of the 21st Amendment. As Marco said multiple times this argument makes little sense. This Amendment has little to do with the issue at hand. One has to do with the drinking age, while the other has to do with transportation and importation. The reading also states that the Act was passed as a means of general welfare. This argument goes along with that of MADD. The reality is that times have changed since the Vietnam era and "old enough to fight, old enough to drink" simply is no longer a strong argument. I can understand Nick's arguments that the Act may not align perfectly with the Constitution. However, if the federal government and the supreme court feel similarly, there is very little disputing the fact that this law makes sense. It is vital that the federal government and the state governments see eye-to-eye, but at what expense? This act was created and put into place with the U.S. citizens' general welfare in mind and it has been proven that this law has prevented many deaths of innocent people.
I agree with Ben in saying that the Federal Government did not abuse it's power in raising the national drinking age to 21. Although the right to do this is not specifically stated in the Constitution, and therefore should be the business of the states, it was necessary and proper for the National Government to make the change. This use of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution gives the Federal Government all the power it needed in solving the issue. I also agree with the courts ruling against South Dakota, when it challenged the legislation that if a state did not change it's drinking age to 21, it would lose 10 percent of it's federal highway aid. The government is still giving the state money, just a smaller amount if the state does not coincide with the drinking age of 21. Though it seems like outright coercion, the actions by the National Government are powerful incentives for the betterment of America.
The federal government was within its rights to change the minimum drinking age to 21. By restricting the states of their highway funds, the states all decided to change its drinking age. Some could view this as outright coercion, but the federal government was not required by the Constitution to give the states highway funds. By taking the funds away, the federal government is simply using powerful incentive. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government simply because there was nothing in the Constitution that opposed the idea. South Dakota stated Amendment 21 Article 2. This does not go beyond the constitutional power of the federal government, because this is far stretched from the issue of the minimum drinking age. Also because raising the drinking age reduced the number of deaths of teenagers by drunk driving, the federal government clearly helped the young people of America. Because the Constitution is written for the benefit of the people, the federal government did not abuse its power by changing the national drinking age.
ReplyDeleteThe federal government did not abuse it's power by requiring the states set a minimum drinking age of 21. The federal government was looking out for the welfare of the country when setting this restriction. This can be seen when you consider that "the average life span of U.S. citizens was increasing for all age groups except those under 21." Also drunk driving was the leading cause of death among this under 21 age group. The federal government set this restriction in order to protect the general welfare of the under 21 age group. It was necessary for the national government to set the restriction instead of giving the power to the states because people would drive over state boarders in order to buy alcohol if there state's drinking age was lower than their own. The conditions set about the federal highway funds was valid because in the case of states having different drinking ages there was the concern of drunk driving and more alcohol related crashes.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Federal government did abuse its power when it passed the Surface Transportation Act of 1982. Many who argue that there was no problem with its passing will reference Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 which states: "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises...to provide for the general welfare of the United States." I do not contend that the act went against this phrase, but rather a later phrase in the clause: "but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." In my opinion the Surface Transportation Act was not "uniform" for every state in the Union. For some years the Act punished states that wanted to keep their drinking age the same, and rewarded most states who changed the drinking age to 21. However, eventually no states could afford to disagree with the Federal government.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to this point I believe the Act was in clear conflict with the 21st Amendment. The amendment outlawed prohibition of alcohol; the Surface Transportation Act of 1982 essentially prohibited the use of alcohol by people from the ages 18 to 20. If the Federal government wanted to change this amendment, then the amendment process, a fair and especially federal process, should have been used.
In response to classmates arguing the merit behind the Surface Transportation Act, I do agree that the purpose of the Act was just. However it was a questionable Act and an abuse of power by the Federal Government.
ReplyDeleteIn response to classmates arguing the abuse of the federal government's power, it is clear that progress was made with the passing of this law. The Supreme Court did what was right for the people and was just in passing the Surface Transportation Act. Clearly South Dakota's arguement was far fetched for this particular case.
ReplyDeleteThe federal government did not abuse its power when the Surface Transportation Act was passed in 1982. Congress acted for the general welfare of the people because the death rate of people under age 21 was increasing. Drunk driving as the cause of death was at its highest point because more teenagers were drinking. Also, alcohol damages the human organs in teenagers quicker than people over 21, another reason to raise the legal drinking age. States that had different drinking ages were at fault for some accidents because teenagers would drive to that state in order to drink, then drive back to their own state drunk. By stating that states wouldn't receive highway funding if their drinking ages were not raised, they guaranteed that all states would comply because no state could afford to lose the funding. Although it was a stretch of governmental power, Congress made the right choice because the death rate of drunk driving involving teenagers has decreased.
ReplyDeleteI think that the national government made a better argument in favor of enforcing the law to increase the drinking age nationally. I agree that the federal government has the right to impose this law in this particular situation. The national government must do all it can to ensure "general welfare", because having a higher drinking age means less and more responsible drinkers, making the streets safer. Subsequently, under the elastic clause, the national government does have the right to impose this law. However, in instances where the federal government cannot find a constitutional reason to impose a law, it should not be imposed at all, whether excusing it as "powerful incentives" or otherwise, for this is infringing on states' rights. If powerful, it is manipulating a state's priorities in how that state is governed. Although I can reconcile with the state's argument, I have to say that the federal government made a better and perfectly excusable defense.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the federal government was completly within their own right to pass the Surface Transportation Act of 1982, thus they did not abuse their power. As many of my classmates have stated, Section 1 Section 8 Clause 1 clearly states the right for the federal government to "have the power to lay and collect...and provide for...general welfare of the United States." Because of this clause in the Constitution, the federal government did not abuse their power. The reason behind increasing the drinking age stems from one major issue concerning the citizens, driving. If the drinking age is lower in one state than another, young adults ages 18-20 will more than likely travel to states with lower drinking ages. Therefore, they are endangering the lives of others as well as endangering their own lives. I also believe that the "conditions" were added merely for the state governmenhts to pass the law in order not to take away money, but rather to ensure the lives of others.
ReplyDeleteIn this particular example, the federal government did not abuse its power. The government was trying to fulfill its task of providing for the general welfare of the country. As the article stated, if some states had kept their drinking age at 18, it would simply encourage teenagers to drive more into states where they could drink, in the end promoting drunk driving.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, in the Supreme Court Case NY v. U.S., the government was given the power to use powerful incentives if need be. Taking away 10% of highway funds definitely falls under this category, as well as connects to the issue in hopefully helping to lessen the number of drunk driving incidents.
I agree with Molly that the incentive to pass the new age limit was not put in place to try and take money away from the states, but to try and protect the lives of United States citizens.
As previously stated on numerous accounts earlier, Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 really does justify this act in my opionion at the national level. The national government's strongest arguement against the states was their facts. Leading cause of death for that age group is drunk driving, lower drinking ages in other states cause teens to drive there and then risk crashing while driving home after a long night of drinking, average life span for US citizens is increasing in every age group except those under 21; all of these facts strengthen the national government's arguement to pass a uniform drinking age. Ultimately, the set of facts the national government had put the states in a very difficult position to defend themselves, and led to the passage of the act.
ReplyDeleteThe federal government did not abuse their power. As we discussed in class today, the federal government was using powerful incentive as Marco mentioned. The reason that what the federal government did was not outright coercion lies in the idea of conditions. Since the states were not already garaunteed this money, the federal government was not taking anything away from them. Therefore, making any argument using the tenth amendment, unjustifiable. As an aside, it must be taken into account that with a significant number of drivers unable to consume alcohol, the money needed for highway repair after an accident will undoubtedly decrease.
ReplyDeleteThe only other argument mentioned in the reading regarding the constitutionality of the act was South Dakota citing Section 2 of the 21st Amendment. As Marco said multiple times this argument makes little sense. This Amendment has little to do with the issue at hand. One has to do with the drinking age, while the other has to do with transportation and importation.
The reading also states that the Act was passed as a means of general welfare. This argument goes along with that of MADD. The reality is that times have changed since the Vietnam era and "old enough to fight, old enough to drink" simply is no longer a strong argument.
I can understand Nick's arguments that the Act may not align perfectly with the Constitution. However, if the federal government and the supreme court feel similarly, there is very little disputing the fact that this law makes sense.
It is vital that the federal government and the state governments see eye-to-eye, but at what expense? This act was created and put into place with the U.S. citizens' general welfare in mind and it has been proven that this law has prevented many deaths of innocent people.
I agree with Ben in saying that the Federal Government did not abuse it's power in raising the national drinking age to 21. Although the right to do this is not specifically stated in the Constitution, and therefore should be the business of the states, it was necessary and proper for the National Government to make the change. This use of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution gives the Federal Government all the power it needed in solving the issue. I also agree with the courts ruling against South Dakota, when it challenged the legislation that if a state did not change it's drinking age to 21, it would lose 10 percent of it's federal highway aid. The government is still giving the state money, just a smaller amount if the state does not coincide with the drinking age of 21. Though it seems like outright coercion, the actions by the National Government are powerful incentives for the betterment of America.
ReplyDelete