Quote:
Originally Posted by manasecret
Prof. S, do you also think that that the National Minimum Purchase Age Act of 1984 (the one that gave reduced federal highway funds to those states with a drinking age limit of less than 21) was unconstitutional and should be repealed? I think it should be repealed. I can't say if it's unconstitutional or not.
Which makes me think, if I understand correctly that the crux of your argument is that the federal govt withholding federal money unless the state's do as they say is unconstitutional, how can that be right? I mean, isn't all money given by the federal government to the states ear-marked for some purpose or another? It's not just given willy-nilly with no intention for the money.
|
I don't know much about the act you speak of, so I won't comment too much on it. Overall, I tend to dislike any use of federal funds to influence state policy. On a personal note, I think the drinking age should be 18, not 21. If you can serve in the military and vote, you should be able to drink. There should not be two thresholds of adulthood, only one. Because the age of consent is nationalized by selective service and voting in national elections, this should be a federal issue not a state or local. I believe this issue even warrants an amendment as it goes beyond alcohol consumption.
What I will comment on is that the stimulus act was outside of normal appropriations, with the direct intent of stabilizing and inspiring the economy, not to influence state and local policy. The name of the act you state even has it's intent in the name. At best this abuse of the stimulus money is against it's publicly stated intention.
California is a complete mess, though, and I fear there will be an attempt to nationalize Cali's bonds/debt and the ramifications of this could definitely blur the lines between state and federal governments even more.
Re: It was bound to happen...
Hybrid Mode
