[Congressman Billybob]

Of course, Congress seeks to push the states around. And this method of pushing the states around IS constitutional. That does NOT mean I favor this result. I am just explaining what is going on, and why.

Congressman Billybob

First in the series, "American Government: The Owner's Manual"

Latest article, "Smart as a Whip, Dumb as a Hoe Handle"

[NittanyLion]

That does NOT mean I favor this result.

It's good to know you think the practice of federal govt bribing the states with their own money should be ended. On that, we're in agreement.

[supercat]

And this method of pushing the states around IS constitutional.

Well, sort of. It's constitutional only when

1. Congress has the legitimate authority to offer the money in the first place (which it usually doesn't), and
2. The regulation in question will allow the spending to achieve a legitimate Constitutional objective more effectively than it would without it, and is narrowly tailored to fit that purpose.

If Congress wanted to pass a law stating that states which fail to enforce a 0.08BAC on specific roads funded by the Federal government would lose funding for such roads, that would probably be legitimate. There is no basis for the federal government funding all roads, however, nor is there a basis for the federal government demanding the enforcement of 0.08BAC on roads it does not fund.