Question

In 1984, Congress enacted legislation ordering the Secretary of Transportation to withhold 5 percent of federal highway funds from states that did not adopt a 21-year-old minimum drinking age. South Dakota, a state that permitted persons 19 years of age to purchase alcohol, challenged the law. In South Dakota v. Dole (1987), the Court delivered a 7 to 2 decision that held that Congress, acting indirectly to encourage uniformity in states' drinking ages, was within constitutional bounds. The Court found that the legislation was in pursuit of "the general welfare," and that the means chosen to do so were reasonable. The Court also held that the constitutional limitations on spending power were not prohibitions on congressional attempts to achieve federal objectives indirectly. The 5 percent loss of highway funds was not excessive. Source: Oyez, South Dakota v. Dole (1987)

Answer 1

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 required states to raise their minimum drinking age to 21 or face a reduction in federal highway funds. In the case of South Dakota v. Dole (1987), the Supreme Court upheld the law, stating that Congress was within its constitutional bounds to encourage uniformity in drinking ages.

Step-by-step explanation:

In 1984, Congress enacted the National Minimum Drinking Age Act (NMDAA) which required states to raise their minimum drinking age to twenty-one or face a reduction in federal highway funds. This legislation was challenged by South Dakota in South Dakota v. Dole (1987), but the Supreme Court upheld the law, stating that Congress was within its constitutional bounds to encourage uniformity in states' drinking ages. The Court found that the legislation was in pursuit of the general welfare and that the means chosen to do so were reasonable. The Court also held that the 5 percent loss of highway funds was not excessive.

Answer 2

The Commerce Clause is common to both South Dakota v. Dole and United States v. Lopez. The facts of United States v. Lopez led to a different holding because the Gun-Free School Zones Act was found to exceed Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The holding in South Dakota v. Dole affected the balance of power between the states and the national government by establishing Congress's power to use spending power to influence state policies.

Step-by-step explanation:

The constitutional clause that is common to both South Dakota v. Dole (1987) and United States v. Lopez (1995) is the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

The facts of United States v. Lopez led to a different holding than the holding in South Dakota v. Dole because the Court found that the Gun-Free School Zones Act did not substantially affect interstate commerce and therefore exceeded the scope of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.

The holding in South Dakota v. Dole affected the balance of power between the states and the national government by establishing that Congress has the power to use its spending power to encourage states to adopt certain policies, even if it indirectly affects areas traditionally within the states' authority.