Home
Let's explore South Dakota v. Dole. In this court case, U.S passed a statute that raised the drinking age in the U.S to 21. The secretary of transportation was ordered to “withhold a portion of federal highway funds”(Epstein 527) from the states that refused to adopt the new law. South Dakota objected to the statute, claiming that government was using its spending powers beyond its limits as well as coercing the states into adopting the statute. The Court ruled in favor of the federal government, arguing that the statute was for the general welfare of the U.S, which was to prevent young people from drunk driving. Therefore, withholding funds for states that adopt legalization of marijuana can be deemed constitutional under the grounds that the government is looking out for the general welfare of students who could potentially harm themselves from smoking marijuana frequently. However, government taxing spending used to promote welfare is an issue that was already discussed in McCray McCray v. United States, and was concluded that such power delegated by the government is legal. However, the 50 percent reduction of federal aid can be deemed unconstitutional. Chief Justice Rehnquist noted in his opinion in South Dakota v. Dole that although withholding funds for highway development could be considered coercive, “all South Dakota would lose…is 5%... the argument as to coercion is shown to be more rhetoric than fact” (South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S 203 (1987)). Notice the amount withheld, which was only 5 percent, leading Justice Rehnquist to believe that it was simply not enough to prove coercion. The rate can be viewed as unconstitutional because it takes away such an absurd amount of federal aid from the states, much so that it can be argued as a cruel and unusual punishment for states that adopt legalization of marijuana. Therefore, the provision is constitutional, but only if the percentage of federal fund reduction is to be reduced to a reasonable amount.
