What happens if one state in the US won't abide to a federal law?

[Koxinga]

I’ve started to wonder if any sort of movement might arise for a constitutional amendment limiting the Commerce Clause. If worded in the right way, I could see such a thing plausibly passing in 3/4 of the state legislatures.

[fumster]

@Duckster

The feds hold the ultimate card. They can always deny federal funds. It’s easier said than done.

Early this year Texas suffered devastating fires. They was no federal disaster declaration. Houston did not get one of the retiring Space Shuttles, which by all accounts, they should have received. Scuttlebutt has it the Texas Republican/Tea Party attitude played a large role in both issues. Yeah, you can make a case both are underhanded political games. The fact remains if you anger the Feds, they can, and will, do something. The Supremacy Clause is a mighty big stick.

Huh, I would have thought that Texas would have turned down Federal assistance out of principle. Besides, Texas already has a retired shuttle.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@villa

See South Dakota v. Dole, 482 U.S. 203 (1987) which ruled the withholding of highway funds constitutional to encourage the states to move to a drinking age of 21.

The decision itself outlines the legal arguments succinctly. This is a rare case in which a competing constitutional amendment is at issue. The general principle that the federal government can do this if it meets certain standards and not in odds with a specific constitution provision, and seven of the nine said it was not in violation.

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, dissenting.

My disagreement with the Court is relatively narrow on the spending power issue: it is a disagreement about the application of a principle rather than a disagreement on the principle itself. I agree with the Court that Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds to further “the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.” Massachusetts v. United States, 435 U.S. 444, 461 (1978); see Oklahoma v. Civil Service Comm’n, 330 U.S. 127, 143 -144 (1947); Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937). I also subscribe to the established proposition [483 U.S. 203, 213] that the reach of the spending power “is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.” United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 66 (1936). Finally, I agree that there are four separate types of limitations on the spending power: the expenditure must be for the general welfare, Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 640 -641 (1937), the conditions imposed must be unambiguous, Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17 (1981), they must be reasonably related to the purpose of the expenditure, Massachusetts v. United States, supra, at 461, and the legislation may not violate any independent constitutional prohibition, Lawrence County v. Lead-Deadwood School Dist., 469 U.S. 256, 269 -270 (1985). Ante, at 207-208. Insofar as two of those limitations are concerned, the Court is clearly correct that 158 is wholly unobjectionable. Establishment of a national minimum drinking age certainly fits within the broad concept of the general welfare and the statute is entirely unambiguous. I am also willing to assume, arguendo, that the Twenty-first Amendment does not constitute an “independent constitutional bar” to a spending condition. See ante, at 209-211.

But the Court’s application of the requirement that the condition imposed be reasonably related to the purpose for which the funds are expended is cursory and unconvincing. We have repeatedly said that Congress may condition grants under the spending power only in ways reasonably related to the purpose of the federal program. Massachusetts v. United States, supra, at 461; Ivanhoe Irrigation Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275, 295 (1958) (the United States may impose “reasonable conditions relevant to federal interest in the project and to the over-all objectives thereof”); Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra, at 590 (“We do not say that a tax is valid, when imposed by act of Congress, if it is laid upon the condition that a state may escape its operation through the adoption of a statute unrelated in subject matter to activities fairly within the scope of national policy and power”). In my view, establishment of a minimum drinking [483 U.S. 203, 214] age of 21 is not sufficiently related to interstate highway construction to justify so conditioning funds appropriated for that purpose.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Whack-a-Mole

The preamble to the Constitution has no legal force whatsoever. It is just an introduction but otherwise is legally meaningless.

The general welfare power also appears in Article I, Section 8.

[MLS]

During an earlier “energy crisis” there was a federal mandate that each state set a speed limit of 55 mph on all roads. One state – I believe it was Wyoming – said fine, we’ll do it. However, the feds could not mandate the penalties for violation. Wyoming set up their law as an energy-saving device. Violation of it was $5.00 or so for failure to conserve natural resources and was not considered a moving violation, no points on one’s license, etc. In addition to this there was an extreme paucity of state troopers so one’s chances of being stopped were between slim and none. And Slim just left town.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@MLS

During an earlier “energy crisis” there was a federal mandate that each state set a speed limit of 55 mph on all roads. One state – I believe it was Wyoming – said fine, we’ll do it. However, the feds could not mandate the penalties for violation. Wyoming set up their law as an energy-saving device. Violation of it was $5.00 or so for failure to conserve natural resources and was not considered a moving violation, no points on one’s license, etc. In addition to this there was an extreme paucity of state troopers so one’s chances of being stopped were between slim and none. And Slim just left town.

I assume you didn’t mean to say that only one state agreed to do it, which is how this reads. Lots of states agreed, and most of New England actually reduced their speed limits to 50 mph.

[MLS]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I assume you didn’t mean to say that only one state agreed to do it, which is how this reads. Lots of states agreed, and most of New England actually reduced their speed limits to 50 mph.

Thank you, my comment was poorly worded. I believe that every state did implement the law in some form. I just knew about this particular case because my sister and brother-in-law were traveling there at the time. And IMHO it made sense in that situation, where you have hundreds of miles of sparsely-traveled highway.

[Duckster]

@sh1bu1

Huh, I would have thought that Texas would have turned down Federal assistance out of principle. Besides, Texas already has a retired shuttle.

Going back a few years the Texas governor has flip flopped on his hatred for the feds, but now wants the feds help.

[Wakinyan]

Thank you for all the very interesting replies!