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.
Everyone can agree that drunk driving on our national highways is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. But trying to solve this issue by allowing Congress to impose sanctions upon federal highway funds is not the way to do it.
This Court has previously found that Congress can set conditions on grants under the Spending Power only if they are reasonably related to the purpose of the federal program.
I agree with Justice O'Connor in her opinion that an establishment of a minimum drinking age across the nation is not closely enough related to interstate highway construction and thus is a violation of the Twenty-first Amendment. In my opinion if the Court feels that a national drinking age should be established then it should so confer this idea to Congress in a proper way and not by the violation of the Twenty-first Amendment as has have done in this case. I therefore dissent.
Chief Justice Warren noted in the syllabus of the case, Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of
Chisholm vs. Georgia Supreme Court Case The case of Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 in the year 1793 is considered by many to be the first great United States Supreme Court case (Wikipedia PP). In 1792, South Carolina residents executing the estate of Alexander Chisholm sued the state of Georgia in the Supreme Court over payments due them for goods that Chisholm had supplied to Georgia during the American Revolutionary War
The Court reversed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and remanded the case for dismissal with no prejudice; it overruled the Court of Appeals verdict and prepared the dismissal of the case, allowing Padilla to refile the petition. Boumediene v. Bush The Boumediene v. Bush case was a writ of habeas corpus submission made in a civilian court of the United States. Lakhdar Boumediene
The Supreme Court found that the habeas corpus petition was filed improperly, and therefore the case was dismissed and all previous decisions in other courts overruled. The central issue regarding the power of the president was never decided. Justice Stevens presented a dissent stating that the government failed to give proper notice for Padilla's transfer to military custody I South Carolina. The contention is that the habeas petition would have
On July 3, 1969, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order requiring the submission of new plans to be put into effect this fall to accelerate desegregation in 33 Mississippi school districts. On August 28, upon the motion of the Department of Justice and the recommendation of the Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare, the Court of Appeals suspended the July 3 order and postponed the date
Federalist What is a faction? Where in modern American politics do we see factions? How does Madison propose to quell the impact of factions in government? In Federalist 10, James Madison discussed the types of factions, parties and interest groups that result from differences in wealth and property, as well as differences of opinion in religion, politics or ideology. He thought that differences in wealth and rank, at least those not