New Jersey is one of many states (if not all) that have lowered the legal blood alcohol standard for drunken driving from .10 to .08. This article explains why.
Isn’t this tantamount to bribery? I thought the states were free to make their own laws as long as they weren’t unconstitutional. Is any state really free to make the choice to keep the BAC at .08 if the federal government threatens to take away federal funding? Should the federal government be allowed to threaten states to do things their way or else?
I think the Feds used the very same method to get the states to do what they wanted re the highway speed limit (55 mph) and the legal drinking age (21).
Also, consider the medical use of marijuana. A number of states (9?) have passed legislation allowing the medical use of marijuana, but the Feds have waded in heavy-handedly to arrest, try, and imprison the sick and dying and their caregivers.
I don’t like it, but I think it’s a lost cause. The states no longer have any rights the Fed govt need respect.
I don’t like it either. It is a sneaky subversion of states rights by the Federal government. As stated previously, they have done this several times in the past. Obviously, no state can afford to lose federal highway funds. It will be really scary if this sets a trend and they threaten to withhold money from other types of programs to force states to comply with whatever they see fit. I have no idea if it would hold up in the Supreme Court but the issues so far haven’t been hot enough for any state to challenge.
Um, federal funding has always been controlled by the federal government. Argue against a particular policy if you will but a government that can’t control its own expenditures isn’t much of a government at all. What’s next? Should county governments veto state budgets? Should each citizen have a veto on county budgets? That is a recipe for disaster.
The problem, as I see it, is the false sense of entitlement. People feel their state is entitled to certain federal funds. In this case, that’s not how it works.
When did it become extortion to put conditions on continued support? Is it extortion for a parent to tell their adult son to give up drugs or move out? Is it extortion to tell a resturant manager that you won’t be back since they are no longer serving your favorite dish? I don’t consider “I’m not going to help you anymore unless…” to be coercion.
I am unaware of any significant federal revenue collected from states. Yes, residents of a state do pay into the federal coffers but not as Pennsylvanians or Michiganders. So far as I know the federal taxes are raised from Americans as Americans. If some of those Americans are unhappy about how that money is spent they need to contact their representatives in Washington rather than in Harrisburg or Lansing because it’s federal money not state money.
Is it really appropriate or relevant, in this day and age, to speak of the “rights” or the “sovereignty” of states of the Union? I thought we pretty much settled such issues in 1865. Let us speak, rather, of practicalities. Leaving a given government function at the state level offers the advantage of allowing for flexibility in response to variations in local conditions and political culture; federalizing a given function offers the advantages of standardization, uniformity, and economies of scale. Some government functions are best handled at the state level, some at the federal level, and with respect to some functions there are good arguments on both sides. The Constitution doesn’t cover everything because a lot of modern government functions simply didn’t exist when it was drafted; and so some functions have gone back and forth between being done mainly in state capitals and being done mainly in Washington. Ever since Reagan was elected there’s been a steady decentralization of functions and that seems to be working pretty well – except (IMO) with respect to public education, which (IMO) could benefit from more vigorous national control (and funding) – but that can be remedied by ordinary political processes.
I’ll take this rare opportunity agree with 2sense here. If a state wants to feed at the federal trough, it shouldn’t expect to do so without some strings attached.
I should note that it is easy for me to see the logic of my position since I want Congress to use the highway funds to encourage the states to adopt my plan for circumventing the Electoral College and moving to a de facto direct popular vote. Back when I was a young buck and Reagan was pulling this stunt to raise the drinking age to 21 I was not very happy about it. Luckily Ohio enacted a “grandfather clause” for us 19 and 20 year olds which gave me the incentive to spend some summers working at Cedar Point. Working there sucked but I did meet Mrs 2sense.
Of course the government should control its own expenditures. But when they shell out a certain amount for each state and then threaten to lessen the amount for each state if the state doesn’t change their laws, well, that just don’t seem right.
Actually, the states are entitled certain funds through the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act.
From the Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
extortion
\Ex*tor"tion, n. [F. extorsion.] 1. The act of extorting; the act or practice of wresting anything from a person by force, by threats, or by any undue exercise of power; undue exaction; overcharge.
Seems damn close to the above definition.
If doing drugs wasn’t against a wriiten constitution the parents had with their son and there was a Federal act guaranteeing support, that wouldn’t be right either. Extortion? Nah. Bribery? I think so.
Why doesn’t it seem right? It’s federal money, why should the federal government not get to decide how it is spent?
That law is an act of Congress. The law placing conditions on that highway money is also an act of Congress. When they pass a new law it overrules any contradictory clauses of any previous law they have passed. I’m sure there’s some neat Latin term for this procedure but I don’t know what it is. In any case, how could it be otherwise? Should the current Congress not be allowed to reform or rescind the laws of previous Congresses?