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

[formosa]

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

[Billthedrill]

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...

[Tzimisce]

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

[kabar]

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.

[DManA]

How is the drinking age Federally mandated?

[Erik Latranyi]

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.

[longtermmemmory]

will other unfunded mandates fall too?

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

[george76]

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.

[cableguymn]

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.

[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.

[george76]

Yes ?

[SoCal Pubbie]

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

[Michael.SF.]

read the article and you will learn how..

[DManA]

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

Insanity.

[Ken H]

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).

[formosa]

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.

[loucon]

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

[kabar]

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.

[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.