This was to legislate states to make their legal drinking age 21 years old. What I don't understand however is why? If states did not comply they would be risking 10% of their federal highway funds but why does the penalty have to be so drastic if determining the legitimacy of a law like that is a matter of the state?
The act supposedly doesn't violate the tenth amendment claiming that the distribution of alcohol is left to the discretion of the state ... how is that possible, if a state decides not to comply they are penalized. I say that is a violation of he tenth amendment.
It took until the year of 1988 until all states were in compliance but Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands remained 18 and loss their highway funding. I find it odd that we are able to vote at 18 but not drink; that were allowed to fight for our country but not even able to take a sip in our honor. The US tries to mandate the laws on the legal drinking age but the truth is; people are still going to drink under the age of 21.
Do you think it would be a good idea for the government to amend its decision on the minimum drinking age? why, why not?
The act supposedly doesn't violate the tenth amendment claiming that the distribution of alcohol is left to the discretion of the state ... how is that possible, if a state decides not to comply they are penalized. I say that is a violation of he tenth amendment.
It took until the year of 1988 until all states were in compliance but Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands remained 18 and loss their highway funding. I find it odd that we are able to vote at 18 but not drink; that were allowed to fight for our country but not even able to take a sip in our honor. The US tries to mandate the laws on the legal drinking age but the truth is; people are still going to drink under the age of 21.
Do you think it would be a good idea for the government to amend its decision on the minimum drinking age? why, why not?