The 21st Amendment Analysis

Converse to the ideals of 18 to 20 year olds, the federal government favors the current drinking age and deters states from lowering them. Between 1970 and 1982, 36 states lowered their individual drinking ages to 18, 19 or 20 (Searles). A major problem that occurred during those times was the “blood boarder” incidents. Teenagers living adjacent to states with lower drinking ages would cross the boarder to buy alcohol, then drive back under the influence. In order to prevent the increase in accidents and fatalities linked to these occurrences, the federal government (with significant lobbying from Mothers Against Drunk Driving) passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. To ensure that all states complied with it, the federal government would cut 10% of highway funding to any state with a drinking age lower than 21 (Searles).

Our Constitution was written to be the backbone of our government but with the task it's given not everything can be written word for word but must be interpreted. Its there to establish our national government and fundamental laws and guaranteed certain basic rights for its citizens. With ideas such as amendments and the Elastic Clause our Constitution can cover all bases and be able to adapt to the situations at hand.

The 21st amendment is an example of amending the constitution because it amended 2 things; It repealed an amendment, and it added one (The 18th amendment (Itself)). Amending the Constitution means to change the Constitution. Any amendment that is added or subtracted from the Constitution is considered an amend. The 21st amendment is a 2-in-1 amend because it is responsible for 2 changes. The 18th amendment states that transporting, producing, or selling alcohol would be illegal. However, the 21st amendment is the exact opposite. It states that transporting, producing, or selling alcohol would be legal. Because that is the exact opposite, it would repeal the 18th amendment.

minimum drinking age to 21. States that did not risked lowering the amount of highway

(LegalFlip.com) President Ronal Reagan signed into effect the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. The NMDAA is an example of an “unfunded federal mandate”. (LegalFlip.com) A federal mandate is a law that orders the states to do (or not do) something or face a penalty. Federal Mandates can either be funded or unfunded. An unfunded federal mandate means that the federal government does not give the states money in order to carry out the mandate. The federal government does not have the power to force states to do something. Under the NMDAA, the government ordered the states to raise thier minimum legal drinking age to 21 years old. States were free to say “No”, and not raise their minimum legal drinking age. However, any state that refused would lose approximately 10% of it federal funding for highway public transportation.(LegalFlip.com) So, for all intents and purposes, the states had to raise the drinking age.

The last two states that raised their drinking age was Wyoming and South Dakota. South Dakota claimed that the highway funding ordeal was an overstretch of congresses power. They also claimed that this was a violation of the Twenty-first amendment which allows states regulate alcohol. The Supreme Court responded by saying that Congress can indirectly promote organization through spending power as long as it is for the general welfare for the people. The Supreme Court ruled law constitutional,they believed that Congress was genuinely trying to promote general welfare of the

The reason for this alternate title is due to the national governments use of financial resources to place pressure onto the States to adopt laws that the federal government is unable to enforce themselves, such as in regulating the importation and sale of intoxicating liquors protected to the States by the 1933 ratification of the Twenty First Amendment. One example of such coercive federalism lies within the 1987 case of South Dakota v. Dole. Leading up to the Court’s ruling in this case, Congress was manipulating the States into adopting laws that implemented a legal drinking age of 21 in order for the State to receive a distribution of a federal highway grant. In a 7 – 2 vote the court upheld the federal government’s decision to withhold highway funds from states that refused to raise the legal drinking age to

Towards the end of the 1970 the President and the government were concerned about the legal drinking age. When the President, Ronald Reagan noticed the ridiculous amount of public health and safety issues he passed an act. For instance in 1982, President Ronald Reagan confronted a Presidential Commission officer on Drunk Driving because of the research that he found on younger drinking ages that had increased alcohol-related highway deaths. It was about thirty years ago when President Reagan passed a law in 1984, called the minimum drinking age act. The minimum drinking age act required America’s states to raise the age to 21 for purchasing and having public possession of alcohol by October 1986. For each state that don’t follow this law

In 1984 Ronald Reagan proposed a new law that declared that the legal drinking age must raised up to 21 instead of the age of 18. The law was forced upon the states by threatening them by stating that the government will reduce their highway funding until the states passed the law. Of course all the states eventually change their legal drinking age to 21. Some critics believe that this law’s results have been very successful, however the law possesses many insecurities, but certain programs can be arranged to help educate teenagers on alcohol.

In 1984, the American government raised the minimum national drinking age from 18 to 21 as a method to reduce the number of car crashes and deaths caused by underage drunk drivers. The government placed the minimum drinking age law in the Federal Aid Highway Act, and by doing that states were not technically required to keep their minimum drinking age at 21. Given the fact that the law was a part of the Highway Act, if a state wanted to establish a different minimum drinking age, they would be required to surrender ten percent of their highway funds (Messamore). In 1987, after the act was passed, South Dakota challenged the law by changing their minimum drinking age to 19 and were brought to court in the case South Dakota vs. Dole. The court used the 27th amendment, which limits government spending power, to achieve their federal objectives. In a 7-2 decision, it was decided that Congress was able to use financial penalties on states that did not comply with the law (South Dakota v. Dole). Different federal, state and local laws help to decide alcohol 's "role" in our country. The different governments worked together to decide what laws would be put in place regarding manufacturing alcohol, selling alcohol, who can drink, and any responses to alcohol-related problems (Alcohol Policy). The brain is not fully developed until age 25 and alcohol can affect the hippocampus, a part of the brain that plays an important role in the formation of new memories. Several people may

The government is conducting an idea to whether lower the minimum legal drinking age in the United States or not. Many Americans forbid the idea of legalizing the drinking age so that it would be profitable to the businesses. Likewise, there have been many advantages and disadvantages of why should the government allow young adults drink under the age of 21. To prevent this issue, many Americans have provided reasoning that will support the idea of keeping the minimum legal drinking age where it is now. The government should maintain the minimum legal drinking age in the United States at the age of 21.

The United States’ minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) of twenty one is almost a perfect example of a policy with unrealistic expectations and serious unintended consequences. The current policy that the United States has in effect criminalizes youth who consume alcohol at less than twenty one years of age. Young adults are going to drink under twenty one, so why shouldn’t the United States lower the MLDA to eighteen? Following Prohibition in 1933, many states made their MLDA twenty one. During the 1960’s and 1970’s, many states lowered it to eighteen to match the drafting age (Alcohol Policy MD). President Reagan passed The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 which required all states to raise their minimum purchase and public

I. Introduction: Starting in 1970 21 states reduced the minimum drinking age to 18. Another 8 reduced it to 19 or 20. However, these states noticed increases in alcohol-related fatalities among teenagers and young adults. As a result, of the 29 states that had lowered their drinking age, 24 raised the age again between 1976 and 1984. By 1984, only three states allowed 18-year-olds to drink all types of alcoholic liquor. The enactment of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 prompted states to raise their legal age for purchase or public possession of alcohol to 21 or risk losing millions in federal highway funds. The states who raised it were given highway funding by the

It has been a rising issue within the past century to have the drinking age set at 21, but many people are more in favor of having the age set at 18. For instance, “’Raising the drinking age to 21 was passed with the very best of intentions, but it’s had the very worst of outcomes,’ stated by David J. Hanson, an alcohol policy expert” (Johnson). Many people believe that having the drinking age set at 21 was a smart idea, but it has caused many more deaths and injuries over the years. Most of these fatalities are cause from people who are underage and choose to consume alcohol. Again, “Libertarian groups and some conservative economic foundations, seeing the age limits as having been extorted by Washington, have long championed lowering the drinking age” (Johnson). These groups see that keeping the drinking age set at 21 is dangerous as it causes more problems to the Untied States. If the drinking age was lowered, or set at 18, there would not be such unforgiving outcomes, like deaths and lifelong injuries, which are usually caused from people who are under the age of 21 drinking alcohol. Although there are numerous groups that are fighting to keep the age

On July 1, 1971 the 26th amendment was passed which lowered the minimum age to vote from twenty one to eighteen years old. Shortly after the amendment was passed twenty nine states across America started lowering the drinking age from 21 to either 18,19, or 20 years old. This new freedom for young adults only lasted for a brief time by 1984 the Uniform Drinking Age Act was passed. The Uniform Drinking Age Act forced states to change the drinking age back to twenty one years old; by reducing the federal transportation funding, for each state that did not have a minimum drinking age of21. This act has caused controversy for years, there even is group of 136 college presidents called Amethyst Initiative that support a lower minimum legal