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.
