Posted on 07/02/2012 5:20:32 PM PDT by george76
The Supreme Court justices’ stance on President Obama’s Medicaid expansion provision could be good news for states that want to lower their drinking ages from the federally mandated 21.
...
The Supreme Court ruled that threatening to take away a state’s Medicaid funding unless the state does what the federal government wants is “unconstitutionally coercive” and declared it invalid. Because any given part of a Supreme Court decision can set a precedent for future laws and can even invalidate an established law if it is challenged using the Supreme Court’s new argument, the Medicaid decision could affect the National Minimum Drinking Age Act.
In 1984 Congress passed the law that made it illegal for anyone in the United States under the age of 21 to purchase or publicly possess alcohol. While drinking laws are and always have been a states issue, the federal government was able to enforce the minimum age by making it a part of the Federal Aid Highway Act
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
MADD and Highway money.
I can't wait to start taking some of this crap apart.
Read post #16 and see if you still take that position.
MALE landowners.
MALE landowners.
Through a perversion of federalism which began during the 1973 “energy crisis” when Congress imposed a nationwide 55 mph speed limit by threatening States with losing their federal transportation funding unless they complied.
Next step, MADD found it easier to lobby one legislative body (US Congress) than 50 state legislatures so Congress imposed a nationwide 21 years drinking age. by threatening States with losing their federal transportation funding unless they complied.
Next step, MADD found it easier to lobby one legislative body (US Congress) than 50 state legislatures so Congress imposed a nationwide 0.08 BAC DUI standard by threatening States with losing their federal transportation funding unless they complied.
There are some who have been advocating using this same thuggery to require all states to ban the use of cell phones (some proposals call for hands-free only, others do not) while driving.
If private individuals were to engage in such tactics they
would be charged with EXTORTION.
MALE landowners.
You got that right brother!
I’m with you, assuming you are in earnest.
What kills me about both pro and con in this debate is the belief that setting the drinking age at 21 means 18, 19, 20 year olds aren’t drinking. How naive do you have to be to believe that?
Even college presidents, who’ve seen a drunken student or two, admit that all the 21 law does is drive parties underground, where the booze flows like water, drinking games are prevalent, etc. etc.
Social drinking is part of socialization i.e. maturation. Even though bars aren’t libraries, there still is enough overt and/or subtle social pressure to avoid getting completely blotto. Kids are never exposed to the concept of one or two drinks before dinner, to relax after work etc. so their only conception of alcohol is bacchanalia.
This is what the 21 crowd, including MADD and other cryptoprohibitionists either don’t see because of their agenda or refusal to face the truth.
Hmmm,
It seems that some people out there read this web site, or at least my posts. I pointed out that not only does the federal drinking age get invalidated, so do federal seat belt laws, and (although I didn’t note this one) also the upcoming cell phone ban.
The libs may not like the way this all plays out.
“The Supreme Court ruled that threatening to take away a state’s Medicaid funding unless the state does what the federal government wants is “unconstitutionally coercive” and declared it invalid.”
Unconstitutionally coercive? What does the SC think that mandating that we buy something or be penalized is?
The cost of a 12 pack of beer on sale in the Great White North is around $19.99 and a 24 pack is around $30 -$40 buckaroos or more (depending on your choice of quality) ...... just something to look forward to folks. But on the other hand we get expensive healthcare in exchange!!
Hmmmmm .... what the heck do we really gain by doing this?? Somebody please tell me!
The cost of a 12 pack of beer on sale in the Great White North is around $19.99 and a 24 pack is around $30 -$40 buckaroos or more (depending on your choice of quality) ...... just something to look forward to folks. But on the other hand we get expensive healthcare in exchange!!
Hmmmmm .... what the heck do we really gain by doing this?? Somebody please tell me!
Oh, I am in earnest about getting rid of all of this crap.
Forgot to mention the lightbulbs.
Hopefully - yes
“The cost of a 12 pack of beer on sale in the Great White North is around $19.99 and a 24 pack is around $30 -$40 buckaroos...”
Nice try, but those are CANADIAN DOLLARS. We’re not fooled...ehhhh...never mind.
.....strangely enough though .... the buck is almost even at current exchange rates!!
ok how about highway speed limits??
and the lightbulbs.
“...and the lightbulbs.”
Maybe, maybe not. I think the mandate with light bulbs was different as it didn’t require each state to pass a law, outlawing (normal) light bulbs. But drinking age, seat belts, cell phones, are mandates that require state laws - even if most of the states (quietly) agree...like Texas, under GOVERNOR RICK PERRY.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.