Why the 21st amendment of the us constitution was in question in south dakota in 1987

The immense size and power of the Government of the United States ought not obscure its fundamental character. Inthe drinking age in South Dakota was 19 for beer containing an alcohol content of up to 3.

Why the 21st amendment of the us constitution was in question in south dakota in 1987

The Amendment, itself, strikes the proper balance between federal and state authority. McClure "Certainly, statistically, if you use that one set of statistics, then the mandatory drinking age ought to be raised at least to 30" ; ibid. Butler, supra, at U. Were South Dakota to succumb to the blandishments offered by Congress and raise its drinking age to 21, the State's action in so doing would not violate the constitutional rights of anyone. Butler, U. Petitioner South Dakota permits persons 19 years of age or older to purchase beer containing up to 3. For almost 40 years there was no concern for a national minimum drinking age. Petitioner contends that the coercive nature of this program is evident from the degree of success it has achieved. Though finding that "the United States is not concerned with, and has no power to regulate, local political activities as such of state officials," the Court nevertheless held that the Federal Government "does have power to fix the terms upon which its money allotments to states shall be disbursed. South Dakota sued on the basis that this act violated the 21st Amendment of the U. Nichols, U. Even if Congress might lack the power to impose a national minimum drinking age directly, we conclude that encouragement to state action found in is a valid use of the spending power. There is a clear place at which the Court can draw the line between permissible and impermissible conditions on federal grants. But the Court's application of the requirement that the condition imposed be reasonably related to the purpose for which the funds are expended is cursory and unconvincing. I therefore dissent.

Using powers derived from the 21st Amendment, 29 states changed the minimum age to either 18, 19, or Congress has no power under the Spending Clause to impose requirements on a grant that go beyond specifying how the money should be spent. But the Court's application of the requirement that the condition imposed be reasonably related to the purpose for which the funds are expended is cursory and unconvincing.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed.

21st amendment bar

The Amendment, itself, strikes the proper balance between federal and state authority. The Court also relies on a portion of the argument transcript in support of its claim that South Dakota conceded the reasonable relationship point. The Amendment did not give States the authority to pass nonuniform laws in order to discriminate against out-of-state goods, a privilege they had not enjoyed at any earlier time. We have repeatedly said that Congress may condition grants under the spending power only in ways reasonably related to the purpose of the federal program. She says that the 21st amendment gives this power solely to the states. Were South Dakota to succumb to the blandishments offered by Congress and raise its drinking age to 21, the State's action in so doing would not violate the constitutional rights of anyone. During the Vietnam War era, states lowered the drinking ages to 18, 19, or 20, later increasing them after seeing increases in alcohol related traffic incidents.

By the time South Dakota v. I agree with the Court that Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds to further "the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.

case that made drinking age 21

The only possible connection, highway safety, has nothing to do with how the funds Congress has appropriated are expended. I therefore dissent. The decision of South Dakota v.

South dakota v

In response to the drunk driving epidemic of the s, President Ronald Reagan passed the Minimum Drinking Age Act in July , a law that mandated states increase the drinking age to Rehnquist wrote that the Congress did not coerce the states because it cut only a small percentage of federal funding. The only possible connection, highway safety, has nothing to do with how the funds Congress has appropriated are expended. As discussed above, a condition that a State will raise its drinking age to 21 cannot fairly be said to be reasonably related to the expenditure of funds for highway construction. The means it chose to address this dangerous situation were reasonably calculated to advance the general welfare. As we explain below, we find this legislative effort within constitutional bounds even if Congress may not regulate drinking ages directly. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and the case went to the Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari. My disagreement with the Court is relatively narrow on the spending power issue: it is a disagreement about the application of a principle rather than a disagreement on the principle itself. Such limitation is not a prohibition on the indirect achievement of objectives Page U. Here Congress has offered relatively mild encouragement to the States to enact higher minimum drinking ages than they would otherwise choose. When Congress appropriates money to build a highway, it is entitled to insist that the highway be a safe one. And the State itself, rather than challenging the germaneness of the condition to federal purposes, admits that it "has never contended that the congressional action was. It remains a Government of enumerated powers.

Implementation[ edit ] State and local control[ edit ] The second section bans the importation of alcohol in violation of state or territorial law. Inthe 18th amendment was ratified, prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in the United States completely.

Rated 6/10 based on 20 review
Download
SOUTH DAKOTA v. DOLE, U.S. ()