Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What the Supreme Court Obamacare Ruling Means for the Drinking Age
Newsweek/Daily Beast ^ | Jun 29, 2012 | Caitlin Dickson

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 ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: South Dakota
KEYWORDS: abortion; baclimits; deathpanels; highwayspeedlimits; lightbulbs; lowflowtoilets; magazines; medicaid; milk; noknocknowarrant; obamacare; scotus; seatbelts; speedlimits; supremecourt; toilets; unpasteurized; unpasteurizedmilk; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last

1 posted on 07/02/2012 5:20:44 PM PDT by george76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: george76

It will be taxed out of the free market and drinkers will return underground to commit their health crimes.


2 posted on 07/02/2012 5:23:38 PM PDT by formosa (Formosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76
I'd happily lay a heavy fine on anyone who doesn't buy beer. 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...
3 posted on 07/02/2012 5:28:31 PM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

Well you all lost your freedom - but at least teenagers can get drunk. :)


4 posted on 07/02/2012 5:29:14 PM PDT by Tzimisce (THIS SUCKS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

It used to be 18 in NY when I was growing up. If you can vote and serve our country in the military at 18, you should be able to get an alcoholic drink or buy it at a store.


5 posted on 07/02/2012 5:29:51 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

How is the drinking age Federally mandated?


6 posted on 07/02/2012 5:30:02 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: formosa
It will be taxed out of the free market and drinkers will return underground to commit their health crimes.

Doubtful. You have to keep the masses sedated.

One only has to look to England where binge drinking is rampant (especially among the youngest). Free contraceptives leads to another sexual revolution where debauchery and swinging explode into the mainstream.

As long as the people can have their "fun", they will not revolt against oppressive gov't.

7 posted on 07/02/2012 5:31:22 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi (When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: george76

will other unfunded mandates fall too?

if this pans out then it truly is a pyric victory for DC.


8 posted on 07/02/2012 5:31:27 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

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 .

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


9 posted on 07/02/2012 5:33:53 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DManA

I think it’s one of those “do it or we don’t give you your money back” tax things.

You can keep your drinking age at 18 but we’re not going to give you any money for your highways.


10 posted on 07/02/2012 5:34:12 PM PDT by cableguymn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: george76
When article writers like this begin to pull out all the opinions and concurrences and dissents and add up the five justices who ruled That the feds cannot punish states then I would believe . Until then, I am firm in my belief that the liberal justices that joined Roberts specifically did not not concur with “that states could not be punished.”
Show me the CARFAX.
11 posted on 07/02/2012 5:34:37 PM PDT by lag along
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Yes ?


12 posted on 07/02/2012 5:35:15 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kabar

I don’t think they ever should have lowered the voting age myself.


13 posted on 07/02/2012 5:36:06 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DManA

read the article and you will learn how..


14 posted on 07/02/2012 5:37:45 PM PDT by Michael.SF. (Bain Capital would not have bought into Solyndra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cableguymn

Only way they get away with this is people have been brainwashed into thinking that money from the Federal Government is free.

Insanity.


15 posted on 07/02/2012 5:38:21 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 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.

Roberts put the kabosh on that little fantasy...

And in exercising its spending power, Congress may offer funds to the States, and may condition those offers on compliance with specified conditions.See, e.g., College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 686 (1999). These offers may well induce the States to adopt policies that the Federal Government itself could not impose. See, e.g., South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U. S. 203–206 (1987) (conditioning federal highway funds on States raising their drinking age to 21).

16 posted on 07/02/2012 5:39:58 PM PDT by Ken H (v)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

The government has pharmaceutical companies to derive concoctions to keep us sedated. Wasn’t it George Bush who wanted all Americans to have a psychological evaluation to be given medication if necessary. Even republicans come up with some crazy ideas to control people. There is no limit to their insanity.

The crown may be content with allowing their citizens drunkenness. We take care of most of their defense. They also do not have guns. We do. The government here would rather control us than have us crazy in the streets like all those tattered drinkers that fought in our first revolution.


17 posted on 07/02/2012 5:42:17 PM PDT by formosa (Formosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie

I don’t think anyone but land owners should be allowed to vote, so there.


18 posted on 07/02/2012 5:43:47 PM PDT by loucon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie

If you can die for your country in the military, you should be able to vote for or against the people who sent you there.


19 posted on 07/02/2012 5:44:49 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: george76

Yep, states are now free to say FU-EPA, etc, with relative impunity.

This is the beginning of the end of the unfunded mandate.


20 posted on 07/02/2012 5:46:28 PM PDT by lightman (Adjutorium nostrum (+) in nomine Domini--nevertheless, Vote Santorum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA

MADD and Highway money.


21 posted on 07/02/2012 5:48:00 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (In honor of my late father, GunnerySgt/Commo Chief, USMC 1943-65)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: george76
Ooooh!. Seat belts, BAC limits, speed limits, high capacity magazines, low-flow toilets, unpasteurized milk, no-knock no warrant raids on the wrong house, etc., ad nauseum.

I can't wait to start taking some of this crap apart.

22 posted on 07/02/2012 5:50:02 PM PDT by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lightman
Yep, states are now free to say FU-EPA, etc, with relative impunity. This is the beginning of the end of the unfunded mandate.

Read post #16 and see if you still take that position.

23 posted on 07/02/2012 5:50:47 PM PDT by Ken H (v)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: loucon
I don’t think anyone but land owners should be allowed to vote, so there.

MALE landowners.

24 posted on 07/02/2012 5:51:47 PM PDT by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: loucon
I don’t think anyone but land owners should be allowed to vote, so there.

MALE landowners.

25 posted on 07/02/2012 5:52:04 PM PDT by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DManA

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.


26 posted on 07/02/2012 5:53:32 PM PDT by lightman (Adjutorium nostrum (+) in nomine Domini--nevertheless, Vote Santorum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

MALE landowners.

You got that right brother!


27 posted on 07/02/2012 5:55:50 PM PDT by loucon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: lag along
When article writers like this begin to pull out all the opinions and concurrences and dissents and add up the five justices who ruled That the feds cannot punish states then I would believe . Until then, I am firm in my belief that the liberal justices that joined Roberts specifically did not not concur with “that states could not be punished.” Show me the CARFAX.

The section of the opinion reining in Congress' ability to force state compliance, or to endure higher taxes, or to take an unreimbursed hit to local tax revenue, through the withholding of federal funds to comply with unfunded or underfunded mandates or just naked federal diktat, drew a 7-2 majority.
28 posted on 07/02/2012 5:57:37 PM PDT by Goldsborough
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

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.


29 posted on 07/02/2012 6:01:27 PM PDT by relictele
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: george76

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.


30 posted on 07/02/2012 6:05:58 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

“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?


31 posted on 07/02/2012 6:12:50 PM PDT by murron (Proud Mom of a Marine Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76
..... Well .... Considering that ObamaCare will drive the price of Alcohol through the roof to the glorious prices experienced by those living in America's Hat (Canada) ..... I don't think boozing will be as affordable as it once was during the days when we had a free America.

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!

32 posted on 07/02/2012 6:13:29 PM PDT by R_Kangel ( "A Nation of Sheep ..... Will Beget ..... a Nation Ruled by Wolves.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76
..... Well .... Considering that ObamaCare will drive the price of Alcohol through the roof to the glorious prices experienced by those living in America's Hat (Canada) ..... I don't think boozing will be as affordable as it once was during the days when we had a free America.

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!

33 posted on 07/02/2012 6:13:57 PM PDT by R_Kangel ( "A Nation of Sheep ..... Will Beget ..... a Nation Ruled by Wolves.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: relictele
I’m with you, assuming you are in earnest.

Oh, I am in earnest about getting rid of all of this crap.

Forgot to mention the lightbulbs.

34 posted on 07/02/2012 6:15:16 PM PDT by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

Hopefully - yes


35 posted on 07/02/2012 6:15:30 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: R_Kangel

“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.


36 posted on 07/02/2012 6:23:19 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: BobL
.... That's right, I forgot, the Canadians have those Metric Dollars .....

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

37 posted on 07/02/2012 6:28:49 PM PDT by R_Kangel ( "A Nation of Sheep ..... Will Beget ..... a Nation Ruled by Wolves.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: george76

ok how about highway speed limits??


38 posted on 07/02/2012 6:29:55 PM PDT by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper; BobL

and the lightbulbs.


39 posted on 07/02/2012 6:33:32 PM PDT by george76 (Ward Churchill : Fake Indian, Fake Scholarship, and Fake Art)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: george76

“...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.


40 posted on 07/02/2012 6:44:03 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

It was a nice fantasy while it lasted.


41 posted on 07/02/2012 6:47:01 PM PDT by lightman (Adjutorium nostrum (+) in nomine Domini--nevertheless, Vote Santorum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

“MALE landowners. “

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


42 posted on 07/02/2012 6:48:09 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
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. :-)

43 posted on 07/02/2012 6:48:54 PM PDT by OldMissileer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: R_Kangel

“.....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.


44 posted on 07/02/2012 6:51:16 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

“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.


45 posted on 07/02/2012 6:52:33 PM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: george76

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


46 posted on 07/02/2012 6:59:32 PM PDT by packrat35 (Admit it! We are almost ready to be called a police state!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar

I understand your argument, but I disagree.


47 posted on 07/02/2012 6:59:49 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: george76

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


48 posted on 07/02/2012 7:02:37 PM PDT by Warriormom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

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


49 posted on 07/02/2012 7:05:44 PM PDT by REDWOOD99 ("Everyone should pay taxes. Everyone should pay the same rate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: george76

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


50 posted on 07/02/2012 7:07:55 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson