Federal, state, tribal, county and city government: who does what

Grade 8 Social Studies Worksheet

Circle the best answer.

1. Read this first

   Federal money and state laws

   South Dakota v. Dole, 1987 (cards A to E). Card A, the opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist, decided June 23, 1987 (Cornell Legal Information Institute text; cut marked): "Here Congress has offered relatively mild encouragement to the States to enact higher minimum drinking ages than they would otherwise choose. But the enactment of such laws remains the prerogative of the States not merely in theory but in fact." Seven of the nine justices joined it. The opinion also said the Court did not need to decide whether Congress could set a national minimum drinking age directly. Card B, the dissent of Justice O'Connor (same text): "But § 158 is not a condition on spending reasonably related to the expenditure of federal funds and cannot be justified on that ground. Rather, it is an attempt to regulate the sale of liquor, an attempt that lies outside Congress' power to regulate commerce because it falls within the ambit of § 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment." Justice Brennan also dissented. Card C, a summary in our words of the Court's description of the case: in 1984 Congress passed a law directing the Secretary of Transportation to withhold a percentage of federal highway funds from states in which people under twenty-one could lawfully buy or possess liquor; the Court described the loss as 5 percent of certain highway funds. South Dakota let people aged 19 and older buy certain mild drinks, and sued, arguing that Section 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment reserves the setting of minimum drinking ages to the states. A made-up example of the scale: a state that receives $400 million a year in federal highway funds. Card D, the Constitution, Article I, Section 8 (National Archives; cut marked): "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; …" Card E, the Twenty-first Amendment, Section 2 (National Archives): "The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited."

2. 1.

   Card B is Justice O'Connor's dissent. What is it best evidence for, Jun asks?

   • How one justice who disagreed read the law and the Constitution
   • What the Court decided in the case, as the final ruling of the majority
   • How states changed their drinking ages in the years after 1987
   • What a law professor today concludes about the case and its meaning
3. 2.

   Cards A and B read the same 1984 law differently. Where do they differ, Pia asks?

   • The majority called it mild encouragement; the dissent called it regulating liquor sales
   • The majority saw a regulation of liquor sales, and the dissent saw spending encouragement
   • They disagree about whether South Dakota received any federal highway funds from Congress
   • They disagree about what South Dakota's drinking age was before the law passed
4. 3.

   In the made-up example in card C, a state gets $400 million a year in highway funds. What does a 5 percent loss mean, Bo asks?

   • $200 million a year
   • $2 million a year
   • $380 million, which is what the state would lose
   • $20 million a year, a modest slice of the total
5. 4.

   A student writes: "Congress made the drinking age 21 in every state." How strong is that claim, given cards A and C, Zee asks?

   • Weak: card A says setting the age remains the states' prerogative, with a funding penalty
   • Strong: card C says Congress passed a drinking-age law that covered each state in 1984
   • Weak: card C says Congress took no step on drinking ages, just on highway money for roads
   • Strong: card B, the dissent, agrees that Congress had the power to set the age
6. 5.

   How do cards A and B treat the Twenty-first Amendment differently, Kira asks?

   • The majority relied on the amendment to uphold the law, and the dissent ignored it entirely
   • Both said Congress can set the drinking age directly, without any funding condition
   • Both said the amendment bans liquor throughout the nation, whatever state laws say
   • The majority left open whether Congress could set the age; the dissent said states hold it
7. 6.

   A student says: "The Court ruled that states have no power over drinking ages." How strong is that claim, given card A, Esme asks?

   • Weak: card A says the enactment of such laws remains the prerogative of the States
   • Unanswerable: an opinion just describes a law, so it cannot show anything about state power
   • Weak: card A says Congress now sets each state's drinking age directly by law
   • Strong: the Court upheld a law about drinking ages, so states lost power
8. 7.

   Card A: seven justices joined the opinion, and two dissented. What share of the nine joined, and what does it leave out, Noah asks?

   • Zero, since a vote count says nothing about the law or the case itself
   • About 22 percent, a small group among the nine justices on the Court
   • About 78 percent, a large majority, though two justices disagreed
   • About 7.8 percent, a tiny group among the nine justices on the Court
9. 8.

   Which new evidence would best test whether the 5 percent loss pressured states to change their drinking ages, Ari asks?

   • Records of which states changed their drinking ages after 1984, and when
   • A study of highway deaths in the 2000s, compared across the fifty states
   • An article that says the law worked and that states changed their ages
   • The text of the Twenty-first Amendment, as ratified by the states in 1933
10. 9.

    Card C describes a 1984 law and card A a 1987 decision. What do the two dates show, Luz asks?

    • A funding condition passed in 1984 was challenged and upheld in 1987
    • The law had already been repealed by 1987, before the Court heard the case
    • Congress changed the law after the Court's decision in 1987 and raised the age
    • The Court struck down the law in 1987 after South Dakota challenged it
11. 10.

    Which statement about federalism do cards A to E best support, Tala asks?

    • The dissent shows the law was unconstitutional, since it states the better view
    • Congress used spending to encourage a state to change a choice, not to take it over
    • States have no say in how federal funds are conditioned, and cannot challenge them in court
    • Congress can regulate any state law whatever by attaching money to highway funds