What the Supreme Court Obamacare Ruling Means for the Drinking Age

Newsweek/Daily Beast ^ | Jun 29, 2012 | Caitlin Dickson

[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

[lightman]

It was a nice fantasy while it lasted.

[BobL]

“MALE landowners. “

Can’t argue that. We would have NEVER had to deal with Jimmy Carter or JFK if only...

[OldMissileer]

If they don't want to drink it, that's OK, I'll help them out there. Because I'm just that kind of a guy...

Very magnanimous of you. :-)

[BobL]

“.....strangely enough though .... the buck is almost even at current exchange rates!! “

Not all that strange when 10% plus of one’s economy (here, south of the border) is on debt, and debt alone.

[BobL]

“ok how about highway speed limits??”

Actually, Clinton, of all people, signed the bill that FINALLY got the feds out of the speed limit business.

[packrat35]

21 to drink is stupid. You can be tried as an adult, die for your country and vote at 18.

[SoCal Pubbie]

I understand your argument, but I disagree.

[Warriormom]

I have been wondering if the states will be able to apply that portion of the ruling to federal education manates?

[REDWOOD99]

Didn’t the Roberts opinion on Obamascare just say they couldn’t do that?

[Nifster]

great that’s all we need....evem more drunk teen agers

[Nifster]

not even close to the same logic. Drinking makes one irrational and out of touch with every day life. But perhaps you love the idea of a bunch of young drinkers wondering around the roads of your community. Since teen agers have the impulse control of a gnat I don’t want anything to interfer with the few brain cells actually being used to say no

[Nifster]

and that would not be a bad thing

[lag along]

It is my reading that Ginsberg and three others did not agree as to the ability of the states to avoid participating in the medicaid portion. The Dissenting opinions could not be counted in your 7 to 2. So in my count, you have five who uphold the law on various grounds - you have Roberts who says the feds cannot withhold funds for merely not agreeing to the expansion - and four justices not agreeing with Roberts' position on that issue although concurring to other portions of the opinion. The withholding funds or punishment was not before the court nor could it - there not having been the state expansion or state non-expansion- programs in being.The whole withholding/punishment of the states is of no value or presidential effect. See:
JUSTICE GINSBURG, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR joins, and with whom JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN join as to Parts I, II, III, and IV, concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part.
I agree with THE CHIEF JUSTICE that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the Court’s consideration of this case, and that the minimum coverage provision is a proper exercise of Congress’ taxing power. I therefore join Parts I, II, and III–C of THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion.
even absent §1303’s command, we would have no warrant to invalidate the Medicaid expansion, contra post, at 46–48 (joint opinion of SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ.), not to mention the entire ACA, post, at 49–64 (same). For when a court confronts an unconstitutional statute, its endeavor must be to conserve, not destroy, the legislature’s dominant objective. See, e.g., Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng., 546 U. S. 320, 328–330 (2006). In this case, that objective was to increase access to health care for the poor by increasing the States’ access to federal funds. THE CHIEF JUSTICE is undoubtedly right to conclude that Congress may offer States funds “to expand the availability of health care, and requir[e] that States accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use.” Ante, at 55. I therefore concur in the judgment with respect to Part IV–B of THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion.
* * * For the reasons stated, I agree with THE CHIEF JUSTICE that, as to the validity of the minimum coverage provision, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit should be reversed. In my view, the provision encounters no constitutional obstruction. Further, I would uphold the Eleventh Circuit’s decision that the Medicaid expansion is within Congress’ spending power.

[R_Kangel]

..... Yup.... but back to the original point ..... Affordable Healthcare is about to cost us much more than just our freedom ..... the days of affordable commodities and products will become a thing of the past as we sink into the European style economy and government.

All because activist contingents of our society think we need "Affordable Healthcare" which unfortunately is anything but what its name-sake portrays. Sadly, There are serious and fundamental changes that will be necessarily made to the economy and system of government to support this dream, which most will come to realize is actually a chilling and horrendous nightmare spawned by those who brought us this flight of fantasy .... this delusion.

We are living in very curious and historical times.

[montanajoe]

While they are at it I’d like to see Montana go back to no speed limits...

[kabar]

You may like the Nanny state. I don't. I grew up when 18 was the legal drinking age.

Let's stop drafting 18 year olds into the military and you might have a point. People who don't go to college must find jobs and take on adult responsibilities. Nothing magic happens when you go from age 20 to 21.

People must take responsibility for their actions. That applies to teenagers and adults--whatever age society decides that happens. How much government control will you accept to feel "secure?"

[The Antiyuppie]

“So for 28 years, states have been compelled to keep the minimum legal drinking age at 21 or face losing their federal highway funding.”

This is also how the 55mph speed limit was enforced.

[RnMomof7]

Interesting..there are lots of funds that the feds threaten to withhold for various projects.. this could open the states rights issue on every one of them

[Nifster]

And the drinking age was 18 for a very short period of time. Some magical as you call it things actually do happen to you as you get closer to the age of twenty five. Your brain is still forming pathways til then,,,but you obviously dont care

[Nifster]

And the drinking age was 18 for a very short period of time. Some magical as you call it things actually do happen to you as you get closer to the age of twenty five. Your brain is still forming pathways til then,,,but you obviously dont care