Government 12 grade

Question

Imagine a majority of citizens in a state felt that a national minimum drinking age was a tyrannical overreach of national government power imagine that the state decided to set a lower minimum drinking age.

How that state's decision to increase their own sovereignty could impact them?

Answer 1

This would not technically affect the sovereignty of a state as each state has chosen to make the drinking age 21, so to change it to another age is just a state legislative action. However, such a move would greatly affect federal funding to that state.

Answer 2

Hi Lesya,

Raymond raises some good points which I agree, this would be a very bold political move that would certainly reshape politics in that state. However, what I would add is a more direct effect would be that this is a state voting to lower their drink age bellow 21 would make them in violation of the National Minimum drinking age act. This act was passed in 1984 and punishes states whose drinking age is above below 21 by cutting 10% of their federal highway appointment.

It is not strictly speaking illegal for states to lower their drink age below 21. However, this issue demonstrates an interesting facet of how federal and state authority intersect. While states benefit greatly from the national highway system the issue of maintaining highways is a Federal issue. That is because highways and many roads fall under the interstate commerce clause, meaning trade between states. The Minimum Age Drinking act was passed under Ronald Reagan a president who was weary of Federal authority superseded State Authority. The decision to have the drinking age contingent on Highway funding was viewed as a happy median, as opposed to an outright drinking age standard which was viewed as overreach by the Federal government.

Answer 3

it gets more young votes. Real appeal.

there was a Democrat Party presidential candidate in the 2008 primaries who advocated 18 year drinking age, as he argued if you're old enough to go to war in the military, old enough to die for your country, then you're old enough to drink alcohol. While Obama and Hillary disagreed, although they had no actual factual response. I think it was Alaska's Senator Mike Gravel. He also ran for president in 1972 and 2020. fading into the lower tier candidates. He was called a "maverick" and even joined the Libertarian Party later in life, although not really sharing many Libertarian Party positions. But drinking at an early age was fairly libertarian. He also endorsed decriminalizing drugs, making them a public health issue rather than a crime. Libertarian again.

he was going to lose, so he was more honest. if you're in contention for winning, you lie more. candidates are like that. Got him some publicity too. "attention getter" is what critics called him.

Gravel served 3 years in the Army, as an officer during the Korean War. He had a clue what drinking meant to soldiers during war time. He was buried at Arlington National Cemetery. While the leading 2008 Democrat candidates, Barack & Hillary, had never served in the military. In 2020, he ran again, saying about leading candidate Biden "Is this the best the Democrat Party has to offer?" Biden also never served in the military and doesn't drink alcohol, at all.