Supreme Court Case Essay
South Dakota v. Dole The Twenty-first Amendment allowed states to regulate alcohol. In 1984, Congress enacted a withhold of funds to any state that did not raise their legal drinking age to 21 years of age. Many states, who didn't already have a 21-year-old minimun drinking age, fell in suit. Except for South Dakota, who had a 19-year-old minimun drinking age, who challenged the law. They believed that Congress was violating the Twenty-first Amendment by taking away states decision for their minimun drinking age. This case brings the issue of federalism into play by questioning who has the power over law-making. Does Congress have the right to take away a states right to decide the legal drinking age? While South Dakota obviously thought that this was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court had believed otherwise. With a 7 to 2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled Congress' law constitutional. The Court did not see the law as forcing the states into a legal drinking age rather than "merely 'relatively mild encouragement'" which was not illegal. …show more content…
They saw that with different drinking ages, kids were more likely to drive to one state, drink, then dirve back to their home state, which is drinking and driving. The Court saw that the law was "promoting the general welfare of the nation". The Court saw that the means to promote general welfare were reasonable since Congress was trying to achieve more safety in an indirect way. Five percent loss of funds was not particularly coercive, therefore no state was forced to change their
South Dakota v. Dole The Twenty-first Amendment allowed states to regulate alcohol. In 1984, Congress enacted a withhold of funds to any state that did not raise their legal drinking age to 21 years of age. Many states, who didn't already have a 21-year-old minimun drinking age, fell in suit. Except for South Dakota, who had a 19-year-old minimun drinking age, who challenged the law. They believed that Congress was violating the Twenty-first Amendment by taking away states decision for their minimun drinking age. This case brings the issue of federalism into play by questioning who has the power over law-making. Does Congress have the right to take away a states right to decide the legal drinking age? While South Dakota obviously thought that this was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court had believed otherwise. With a 7 to 2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled Congress' law constitutional. The Court did not see the law as forcing the states into a legal drinking age rather than "merely 'relatively mild encouragement'" which was not illegal. …show more content…
They saw that with different drinking ages, kids were more likely to drive to one state, drink, then dirve back to their home state, which is drinking and driving. The Court saw that the law was "promoting the general welfare of the nation". The Court saw that the means to promote general welfare were reasonable since Congress was trying to achieve more safety in an indirect way. Five percent loss of funds was not particularly coercive, therefore no state was forced to change their