Supreme Court Concurring Dissent South

¶ … Supreme Court

Concurring Dissent

South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987) agree with Justice O'Connor in the fact that regulation of the minimum drinking age falls directly within the core powers that have been provided to the States by the Twenty-first Amendment. Because the States have been given this power, Congress cannot make federal grant money available with conditions that violate this right. I see this as an attempt to regulate the sale of liquor on a national level, which is in direct conflict with the Twenty-first Amendment. With this agreement I am not conceding that there is not a need for a national drinking age, but I do not feel that this is the way to establish one.

Congress has previously found that the different drinking ages among the States has created reasons for young people to combine their desire to drink with their ability to drive. It is a problem that has been determined to need a national solution. A Presidential commission that was appointed to study alcohol related accidents and fatalities across the Nation found that the lack of uniformity and consistency in the States' drinking ages does in fact encourage drinking and driving because young people will commute to neighboring States where the drinking age is lower and then drive home after drinking.

This idea can clearly be seen in Army Regulation 600-20, which provides for each commander the express authority to allow for exceptions to the State minimum drinking age, if the commander determines that the exception is justified. One such special circumstances that would afford such justification is that of a substantial risk of increased incidences of intoxicated driving due to soldiers driving to neighboring states that have lower drinking ages. When this exception is granted it becomes legal for 18- to 20-year-old active duty military personnel to purchase and consume alcohol while on a military base regardless of the States minimum drinking age. This is a perfect example of why rules and regulations are needed but at the expense of the Twenty-first Amendment is not acceptable.

This Court understands that Congress wishes that the roads it builds should be used safely, and that drunken drivers threaten highway safety. We also agree that young people are more likely to drive while under the influence of alcohol under the existing laws than they would be if there were a uniform national drinking age of 21. It is agreed that when Congress appropriates money to build a highway, it should be entitled to insist that the highway be a safe one. But it is not entitled to insist this happen as a condition of the use of highway funds. If this is the idea that we convey here today what is going to stop the imposition of regulations in other areas of the State's social and economic life just because Congress feels that there might be a relationship to highway use or safety. In the end this is going to allow Congress to effectively be able to regulate almost any area of a State's social, political, or economic life on the theory that use of the interstate transportation system is somehow improved. The bigger question is whether or not this infringement upon the State's rights, which have been afforded to them by the Constitution, is going to stop with this or are we going to see it spill over into other areas. I feel that setting this precedence is only going to open the door for further abuses and violations of the State's rights as they have been given.

Another flaw that I see in the majority's opinion in this case is that if the purpose of 158 is to deter drunken driving it in my opinion falls very short of connecting this to the idea of why sanctions of federal highway funds are necessary. Granted it may stop teenagers from drinking, but not all of those teenagers are going to drink and then drive on the interstates. It also does not take into account the fact that teenagers are a very small part of the drunken driving problem that faces this Nation today. So trying to force States into adopting a minimum drinking age of 21 may not be truly addressing the real issue that is at hand.