Reading Excerpts from South Dakota v. Dole | A Primary Source Close Read w/ BRI

0:04 Hello everyone, and welcome to today’s Close Reading episode. My name is Josh and today I’m excited to be joined by my colleague, Mary. Hi Mary. Hey Josh. Thanks for having me on today’s episode. Good, yeah, I’m looking forward to our discussion. So today we’re talking about the case of South Dakota v. Dole, which I was not born at the time

0:26 that this case was decided, but I understand that it was a very contentious and controversial decision, namely because it addressed a question that is on a lot of teenagers mind, which is, when can I start drinking alcohol? So I know that my mom talked a lot about how frustrated she was because she was

0:52 almost 19 years old, which was the minimum drinking age in Wisconsin, and this law was passed and so she had to wait until she was 21. But anyway, let’s go ahead and take a look at some of the constitutional issues and texts that were at hand in this case.

1:13 So first off, we have here the spending clause of the Constitution. This is in Article One, Section Eight, and it states, the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide

1:34 for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. So this basically lays out what Congress is able to spend money on. It’s a specific enumerated power, and it’s going to be very important to keep this in mind as we get into the actual details of the case.

1:58 Now, another important thing that we need to keep in mind is the 10th Amendment. So Mary, could you talk a little bit about what the 10th Amendment was and what its relationship was to this case? Sure. So the 10th Amendment is the final amendment in the Bill of Rights. And sometimes I feel like the 10th

2:19 Amendment kind of gets the shaft and the First Amendment gets all the glory. But this is incredibly an important amendment and it says that the power is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution or prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. So basically, any power not specifically given to the federal government or

2:40 enumerated in the Constitution goes to the states and the people. So at the time, it was meant to put to rest fears that the national government is going to take on any additional powers, taking them away from the states, which if you think about the context of the Constitution coming after the American Revolution, we’re fighting against this British tyranny and a crown in Parliament that were too powerful.

3:03 This is basically trying to say that power needs to be shared between the federal government and the states. And that balance between them is something that has been an interpretive act basically since the very beginning of our country. And it’s going to come to play in this case because you have a federal law that a state South Dakota objects to?

3:26 Yeah definitely. Federalism is always a constitutional principle that seems to come up time and time again throughout our history. And once again in this case, it’s at hand. The final amendment that I want us to look at here is the 21st Amendment. So let’s take a step back.

3:47 Before the 21st Amendment, actually there was the 18th Amendment, which banned the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol within the United States. This is known as the prohibition time period. And after a short time, we realized that wasn’t working out too well.

4:09 So we passed the 21st Amendment, which section one says, the 18th Amendment is repealed and the transportation or importation of alcohol, it must follow the laws that are passed. Now, before the 18th Amendment was passed,

4:31 the authority to pass laws fell solely with the states. The 21st Amendment reversed that and gave the authority to the federal government. However, with the 21st Amendment passage repealing the 18th Amendment, that power returns to the states.

4:51 So it’s important to keep that in mind that at this time and really even now, it’s assumed that states have almost exclusive authority to regulate alcohol. Now let’s take a look at the actual act that was passed, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act.

5:13 Mary, can you talk about what that was and also just give some details about what’s happening in the lead up to the Supreme Court case? Sure. This story, like any good story, begins in the 1980s. I was born in the 80s, so Josh has already made me feel like an old lady.

5:34 That’s okay. So the legislation at the center of this specific case which speaks to these bigger principles was the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which was passed in what this act basically did was it said that if the state did not set a minimum

5:56 drinking age of 21, then they wouldn’t be allowed to get all of their federal funding for their highlights. So it was basically trying to encourage states to set the minimum age at 21 without actually saying they had to do this. But as an enticement to setting the drinking age at 21, they’d be able to get more federal funding for highlights.

6:20 So South Dakota actually had a drinking age of 19, and they didn’t want to change that, but they also didn’t want to lose any federal funding for their highways. So they are challenging this legislation. So the case is South Dakota versus Dole, and Dole refers to Elizabeth Dole,

6:40 who was the Secretary of Transportation at the time. Of course, the highways are falling under that Cabinet department. So basically is the question at hand is, is it constitutional to require states to raise the drinking age to get highway money, or is this an overreach of federal authority?

7:01 Is this federalism balance right? Is it out of whack? Right? Yeah. So if we’re looking at constitutional principles, obviously federalism stands out. And then also, just what authority does Congress have over spending? So it’s pretty obvious that Congress can

7:26 allocate money to spend on the general welfare. However, the issue that comes up here is can Congress set stipulations on any money it wants to grant to the states? Can it require states to do things in order to get that money?

7:47 So let’s take a look at the majority and dissenting opinions of the case. So Chief Justice William Rehnquistst wrote the majority opinion. The Court ultimately decided seven to two in favor of the Secretary of Transportation Dole.

8:08 He is going to initially start off with analyzing what constitutes a valid exercise of the spending clause. So he’s going to say, first off, it needs to promote the general welfare. Congress can’t pass any spending bills

8:29 that do not promote our goodness of our society. Now, that’s obviously pretty broad, but he’s going to say that this law falls under that. Next, he says that conditions for receiving funds must be unambiguous.

8:49 And he’s going to say it’s pretty clear they laid it out explicitly what South Dakota needs to do in order to get this money. Third, he says it needs to relate to a national program or interest. And the Court decides that preventing teenage drunk driving on interstate

9:10 highways is a very compelling national interest. So he says those first three, they’re pretty obvious. We don’t really need to go into it anymore. But there are two more that he says are actually going to be difficult to analyze. But he attempts to make his argument for

9:32 why the law actually is valid and constitutional. So he next looks at why is this law valid? I’m sorry? He says that the condition can’t be unconstitutional. So in other words, the federal government can’t require state governments to do

9:56 something unconstitutional in order to receive a federal grant. So an example of this is let’s say the federal government tells states you need to start enacting cruel and unusual punishment on inmates if you want to receive funding for your prisons.

10:18 So he says if that’s the case, then the spending power is not constitutional. That’s not a valid application of the spending power. Next, he says that the condition can’t be coercive. And he addresses these final two issues here with these quotes. So he says that if we raise the drinking age to 21 in South Dakota,

10:43 that does not violate the constitutional rights of anyone. And then finally, he addresses that final coercive point here, which he says this is merely a mild encouragement. It’s not coercive taken. I think it’s like 5% to 10% of the highway funds that they would lose if they don’t

11:07 follow is a mild encouragement in his words. But Mary, what other insights do you have on Rehnquist’s opinion? Well, I really like this for the use of the term blandishments here where South Dakota to succumb to the blandishments offered by Congress. So I had to look up the word blanchement,

11:30 and it’s something that is done to gently persuade. So I almost read this as being a little sarcastic. Congress is encouraging you, not forcing you, but gently persuading you to raise your drinking age. That’s not violating anybody’s constitutional rights. And then again, calling the so originally,

11:50 the funding, they would be if the state didn’t raise their drinking age to 21, they would lose out on 10% of the funding allocated for their highways, and then later it was amended to 5%. But what that actually translates to in dollars and cents, I don’t know. I’m sure South Dakota knew, and I’m sure it was a lot of money, but he calls it, like he said, a mild encouragement.

12:13 So it’s just don’t know. I’m speculating here, but I almost read exasperation and these two quotes here. We’re not forcing you to. You anything. It’s totally within our Congress’s progressive to pass this legislation, right? Yeah definitely.

12:34 And he even addresses the fact that, look, we recognize the federal government government cannot establish a minimum drinking age. That’s not controversial from his point of view. With the passage of the 21st Amendment, that power returned to the states. However, he’s saying that the federal government can kind of get around

12:59 that in a way if it wants to, with the spending clause and mild encouragement to shift your laws to meet what the federal government is trying to achieve to promote the general welfare. So let’s look at the dissenting opinion

13:19 now, which was written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. And she’s going to argue that Congress, when it appropriates money to build a highway, it is entitled to insist that the highway be a safe one. So that’s referring back to the general welfare.

13:40 Does the federal government have a compelling interest to I’m sorry, have a reason to fulfill a compelling national interest, which she says that’s not contentious. Congress wants highways to be safe. However, it is not entitled to insist as a condition of the use of highway funds that the state impose or change

14:05 regulations in other areas of the state’s social and economic light. So with that, she’s referring to changing the drinking age. And so basically what she’s saying is we’ve got to draw a line somewhere. We can require it to be safe, but we shouldn’t go so far as starting to change these

14:29 deeply ingrained authorities that she says should be held by the states. She concludes that Congress could effectively regulate almost any area of a state social, political or economic life if we’re going to follow through with the theory of the majority. And then that final quote she talks about enumerated powers Congress.

14:56 Nowhere in the Constitution does it enumerate Congress to have this authority that stated in the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. I think this is interesting to me because I feel like she’s basically saying it’s a slippery slope. So I was trying to think of an example. If I’m a teacher in my classroom and I

15:16 require for the general welfare of my classroom, that all students have to use the hand sanitizer by the door when they come in, but I can’t say you have to pump it three times and you have to rub your hands 20 times. Like that’s getting too into the weeds of my power to tell you what to do. Maybe that’s a silly example, but I do like that it’s interesting

15:38 that she is basically saying it’s going a little bit too far. Yeah. And that’s where I think this case is a perfect example of how justices really need to make arguments that are not necessarily always rooted in legalism,

15:59 but just their understanding of what’s common sense or where to draw the line. So obviously, Justice O’Connor is saying we’re pushing that line way too far. This is not reasonable. We don’t want to get too involved with state authority.

16:19 Well, the majority is saying, actually, no, we are not pushing that line too far. There is a compelling interest in the general welfare to pass this law. So then we also have Justice Brennan here.

16:39 He wrote another dissenting opinion and he’s going to focus on the 21st Amendment. And he says that the regulation of the minimum drinking age falls solely with the states. And since the states possess this constitutional power, congress cannot condition a federal grant in a manner that abridges this right.

17:03 So that goes back to what I mentioned with the cruel and unusual punishment. He’s saying that the federal government cannot require the states to do something unconstitutional in order to get money. And he’s saying that it would be a violation of the 21st Amendment

17:26 if we were to follow through with this right. So this is a power that clearly falls to the states, according to him. So we can’t have them. We are infringing on their power. Yes exactly. So now, in conclusion, after all that,

17:48 I think it’s important that we just keep in mind what the role of the Supreme Court is in our constitutional system. Now, that’s obviously a very broad question with lots of different interpretations, and I don’t think that we’re going to be able to answer that here. But I think that Abraham Lincoln

18:10 had something really interesting to say in the wake of the dread Scott decision. Which is one of the most infamous decisions in our history that stated that African Americans could never be citizens. Abraham Lincoln. Who at the time this was before he was president. But he stated that if the policy of the government.

18:33 Upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court. The people will have ceased to be their own rulers. So I think this brings up some interesting questions because on the one hand, in the spirit of the rule of law,

18:55 we should be following what the Supreme Court decides. If we don’t, there’s going to be lots of anarchy and chaos. But on the other hand, as Lincoln says, there’s a valid point that the people have an obligation and the right to debate and discuss these decisions because

19:18 obviously the Supreme Court is not infallible. They overturn themselves. Dred. Scott is a great example. That case has long been overturned and seen as a horrible decision. So I just think that this shows how important it is, though, for us to continue to discuss and debate these types of decisions.

19:43 That’s a really powerful quote that you shared from Abraham Lincoln, Josh. I love that. But I mean, our Constitution begins, we the people. It’s not we the Supreme Court, and it’s not we Congress. It’s not we, the President. So like you said, cases come and they can revert back and forth. Laws come and they can revert back and forth.

20:04 So even before the drinking ages and voting ages were in flux throughout the as a response to Vietnam. And if I can be drafted, then I should be able to vote, and if I can vote, I should be able to drink. So things are changing and we’re a nation of laws, not men, but men and women have to interpret and come up with those laws.

20:26 So there’s always the arguing and the discussion and the debate and that’s what’s so beautiful about the Court and about the Constitution and about our constitutional public. Yeah exactly. And finally, one other thing that I found really interesting in this case.

20:48 I’m going to pull up a quote from Justice Sandra Day O’Connor here that she wrote in her opinion, 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.

21:10 So like we discussed earlier, the Court kind of needs to decide where to draw the line regarding principles. They’re not deciding, does Congress have the ability to spend money? Not super controversial questions like that. They’re saying, where do we want to draw the line? And so I think Justice O’Connor here really addresses that.

21:33 And I think this is especially important because it shows that however contentious political and legal debates get, Americans are pretty much always speaking the common language around what principles we want to follow of liberty, equality,

21:54 due process, rule of law, things like that. And really the debates just become about how do we want to apply that principle, not so much do we want to follow that principle. And so I think that’s especially important when times feel polarized, just to remember the common language that Americans are speaking.

22:19 That’s very well said, Josh. I think debate and discussion is healthy. And even in the example of this case, like the two dissenting opinions you have justices kind of coming from two different sides of the political spectrum. So it’s not always hyperpartisan, it’s interpretation of principles that undergird our foundational to our entire political system.

22:43 And as you said, I think that in this quote shows that’s kind of ultimately what it’s all about. Yeah, that’s a great point. Also, Justice O’Connor was more of a conservative justice, and Justice William Brennan was one of the leading liberal voices on the bench.

23:04 But yet they, interestingly agreed with each other on this and then on the majority. There were both conservatives and liberals there who were coming together. And so I think we tend to have this view that the Supreme Court is just very partisan. They’re always split on everything.

23:24 But I think this case is a great example of that’s. Not always the case, no pun intended. Well, thanks so much for tuning in, everyone. If you like this video, please be sure to subscribe to our YouTube channel where you can find every Tuesday and thursday we have new videos on US history, civics,

23:50 we have our Scholar talks and we also have our Homework Help videos. You can also find us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram for updates on events, lessons and ways to get involved. We would love to hear from you as well. So if you like this video, you can comment down below,

24:15 subscribe to our channel and reach out to us in any way that you can. We will also be having a new Homework Help video on this case of South Dakota V. Dole that will be coming out very soon and we will be be sure to link to that video here in the description. Thank you all for joining and especially

24:38 thank you, Mary, for discussing this with me. Of course. Thank you, Josh. Bye everybody.