Analysis of the Plan to Permit States to Have Set Their Own Rules on Drinking

Analysis of the Plan to Permit States to Have Set Their Own Rules on Drinking The Drinking Age States’ Rights States should be allowed to make their own drinking laws because the Constitution does not state that this is a right given to the federal government and therefore, it rightfully belongs to the state governments. This does not classify as an inherent power because Congress has no reason to believe that these laws are necessary for the government to function, especially considering that the United States has only instituted a MLDA – minimum legal drinking age – in the last hundred years. In fact, the history of MLDAs demonstrates how states have been deciding their own drinking laws for years, without the federal government ever needing to get involved. When prohibition was repealed on December 5, 1933, each state was allowed to set their own laws for alcohol consumption within their jurisdiction (Hedlund). It is due to this history that it can be logically concluded that this does not function as an implied power of Congress – especially when it is seen how rather than simply legislating the issue, as they would do if they truly believed they had the right, the government has been going through loopholes of crossover sanctions, the Highway Trust Fund, and misreading the twenty-first amendment for their own gain as they try to pass laws on what should be an issue of implied power. They eventually succeeded in the eighties, a decision that has been upheld in the Supreme Court, but this does not disprove the fact that they never should have been given the right to pass this law in the first place. Prior to the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, states had decided the age of alcohol consumption independently for their constituents. With the addition of the new law in 1984, which forced all states to raise their minimum legal drinking age to twenty-one, the federal government instituted a policy of crossover sanctions which â€Å"force the implementation of federal requirements in one area or the states risk losing money in another, similar area† (LaFaive). In this case, any states that refused to raise their drinking age to twenty-one would be punished by a reduction of their highway funds by ten percent. This was vastly different from the system of states control that had operated until this point, when many states were lowering their drinking age to eighteen to reflect the changing climate following the Vietnam War, when young adults could be drafted to fight for their country but were not allowed to drink. In 1970, the twenty-sixth amendment lowered the voting age to eighteen for this reason (â€Å"The 26th Amendment†) and many states decided to lower their drinking age accordingly. The issue with federal legislation about drinking age is that situations like this are less likely to be taken into account, as can be seen by the federal government choosing the age of twenty-one. This age makes sense in a post-prohibition era when young adults couldn’t vote until that age either, but now it shows that the government is unable to keep as up-to-date as more local governments could. This switch to a system of manipulative fiscal federalism was stated by the federal government to have been done to serve the purpose of protecting young lives as fatalities related to alcohol and drunk driving vastly increased in alignment with states in the sixties and seventies lowering their drinking age to eighteen (MADD). This is not the issue, however. The question is not whether or not lives have been saved by the federal law or not – it is that this was never a choice for the federal government to make in the first place. Whether states do a good job of choosing an appropriate minimum legal drinking age is not to be considered, although the United States has the highest drinking age in the world (ProCon.org), but rather that they are being denied their Constitutional right to decide. Likewise, drinking age is never mentioned in the Constitution and the federal government knows it – they knew that they had no right to legislate on this issue and so covered it up by technically making the act option to states, only enforceable through coercive funds that states need to keep their highways intact. States have the right to legislate any issue that is not explicitly given to the federal government as stated in the tenth amendment but Congress has been using crossover sanctions and its role as a regulator of interstate commerce to deny states of funds from the Highway Trust Fund, which is â€Å"a transportation fund in the United States which receives money from a federal fuel tax of 18.4 cents per gallon on gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel fuel and related excise taxes† (Highway Trust Fund) (Resnick). This has been considered legal through the supreme court case South Dakota v. Dole, which stated that taking five percent of a state’s h ighway fund for refusal to cooperate with the federally mandated drinking age was not considered unduly coercive through the spending clause of the twenty-first amendment (South Dakota v. Dole). It is important to note that this is a decision based on five percent of their highway fund, and that the actual amount that the federal government takes away nowadays is actually twice this amount. Similarly, this is not fair for the states because the funds come from the tax dollars of their constituents and should not be held hostage. The federal government knows that they are in the wrong and do not have the right to legislate on this issue and yet continue to do so. The states have violated no part of the Constitution by changing the drinking age within their jurisdiction to twenty-one, eighteen, or whatever other age that they choose and should not be punished for following the laws of this nation. The twenty-first amendment, which repealed the eighteenth amendment which legislated prohibition, has said nothing about a minimum legal drinking age and so this falls into the category of an implied power, which means that it should be left to the states to decide. As Judge O’Connor stated in his dissenting opinion in Dole, In the absence of the Twenty-first Amendment, however, there is a strong argument that the Congress might regulate the conditions under which liquor is sold under the commerce power, just as it regulates the sale of many other commodities that are in or affect interstate commerce. The fact that the Twenty-first Amendment is crucial to the States argument does not, therefore, amount to a concession that the condition imposed by  § 158 is reasonably related to highway construction. (South Dakota v. Dole 483 U.S. 203 (1987)) What the judge is arguing is that the commerce clause, which gives Congress the power â€Å"to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes†, is not a factor in the decision of Dole because the case is not centered around whether or not the federal government has the right to control the Highway Trust Fund, as they clearly do, but whether the drinking age is adequately relevant to these funds to justify keeping them from states – and, more importantly, whether the federal government has the right to pursue crossover sanctions for this issue at all. The fact of the matter is that this is an easy realization to come to. The Constitution does not say anything about drinking age and so it is the implied right of the states to legislate on this issue if they choose to. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 is not only unnecessary, it is unconstitutional in the strictest version of the law. Congress knew this when th ey looked for loopholes and the rights of the states must be protected.

COMPARE THE UNITED STATES BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE ENGLISH MAGNA CARTA OF Term Paper

COMPARE THE UNITED STATES BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE ENGLISH MAGNA CARTA OF 1215 - Term Paper Example The second amendment is the right to keep and bear arms. This amendment guarantees citizens the freedom to protect their life against oppression of the government by keeping arms (Burgan 38). The third amendment states the conditions for quarters of soldiers. These conditions state that citizens cannot be forced to have soldiers enter their houses whether during war or during peace (Burgan 39). The fourth amendment is the right of regulated search and seizure. This amendment guarantees citizens the right to have their places and possessions searched or seized only against a warrant issued under due cause (Burgan 39). The Fifth Amendment concerns provisions concerning prosecution. This means that the citizens cannot be prosecuted unless a Grand Jury finds it legitimate to do so. Citizens should also not be compelled to testify against themselves (Burgan 39). The sixth amendment secures citizens the right to a speedy public trial by a jury that is unbiased. The citizen should have the opportunity to see the witness of the prosecution and to present his own witnesses (Burgan 40). The seventh amendment guarantees citizens involved in suits where the value exceeds twenty dollars a trial by a jury (Burgan 41). The eighth amendment protects US citizens against unnecessarily large amounts for bail, expensive fines or cruel punishment (Burgan 41). The ninth amendment protects citizens’ rights against other rights specified in the Constitution (Burgan 41). The tenth amendment protects citizens against the federal government by only giving it rights specifically mentioned in the Constitution (Burgan 41). 2. The Magna Carta of 1215 was an important charter signed by King John of England on 15 June 1215 after barons who had become dissatisfied with the king’s exploitative form of governance and exorbitant taxes had besieged him in his palace at Windsor (Drew 139). The Magna Charter is important because it restricted the absolute powers of the king and helped t o make the parliament more powerful. Primarily, the charter was intended to modify the feudal relationships between the king and the barons in the kingdom but down the centuries the terms of the charter and the freedoms granted to citizens under it have become a cornerstone for citizens’ rights and freedoms around the world. The document became the basis of the constitutional form of government (Drew 139). Originally, the Magna Carta contained 37 laws but most of these have been lost over the centuries. The most important of the laws that is in existence today is the freedom of citizens to be protected against forcible imprisonment or possession of property by the government. Among other freedoms guaranteed by the Magna Carta were the independence of the Church and its protection against interference of any kind from the king. The Magna Carta also transferred the right to impose taxes to the parliament. Citizens were also given the right to due process and protection from arb itrary punishment and seizure (Drew 139). 3. The Magna Carta of 1215 was written by Archbishop Stephen Langton of Canterbury and was signed by King John. It was originally called Articles of the Barons. The document was signed under pressure from the feudal barons who had united against the oppressive governance of the king (Drew 139). The Bill of

Aids Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 1

Aids - Essay Example Sharing the information often comes with more advantages than keeping quiet about it since it helps the partners to decide about the future of their relationships and the additional safety measures they should adopt. One major shortcoming that comes with telling a partner about one’s HIV status is that there is increased risk that the relationship may enter a rocky face as a result of mistrust, embarrassment or shock towards such revelation. Reactions towards such disclosures vary, but the fact the partners have always utilized protection means that the risk of such infections being transmitted is minimal. Disclosure of one’s HIV/AIDS status may be tough, but it can help minimize the stress that comes along with living with such infections as well as improve the overall health of the infected person. As much as it is a personal choice, there are laws in some countries that require one to share such information with specific people (AIDS, 2014). Sharing ones HIV status may go as far as preventing possible prosecution in case an individual knowingly puts his partner at risk of getting infected. Knowing about the status and sharing the information while time utilizing it, is more adva ntageous than not telling at all. This is because it gives the partners a chance to tolerate and accept each as well as lead a healthy life where the risk of the uninfected partner contracting the disease from the uninfected partner is completely eliminated (Aidsmap,