Reducing the national speed limit to 55 to conserve gas

[mightyace]

And, in any case, the so-called NMSL was an end run around the constitution because the states have become dependent on Federal money.

The NMSL did not technically set a national speed limit.  It said that if you didn't set your speed limit to 55 and "prove" you enforced it, you'd get no Federal highway $$.

Since no state then, let alone now, could afford to give up that money, it was a national speed limit from a practical viewpoint.

____________________

And, I do agree with most of the reasons given against having one.  Plus, the older I get, the less I want to waste time going 55 when I could go 65-85.  (Assuming I still have the skills to drive that fast.)

[agentsteel53]

basically the same reasoning as the drinking age being 21.  far too much is tied to federal funds than should be constitutionally permitted.

[golden eagle]

I'm surprised no one has said this yet, but I can't drive...55!

[JREwing78]

Many states have a 40 or 45mph minimum speed limit on their freeways already (Illinois has 45, Michigan has 55).

I have never seen that enforced.  I've seen plenty of people get pulled over for going too fast; not once for going too slowly.

I have an uncle who got a ticket for going too slow, back when Michigan's freeway speed limits were 55mph maximum/45mph minimum.

[1995hoo]

basically the same reasoning as the drinking age being 21.  far too much is tied to federal funds than should be constitutionally permitted.

Unfortunately, the way the federal courts have determined that sort of case is that no state has a "right" to receive federal highway funding, so Congress is permitted to put whatever conditions it wants on the disbursement of that money as long as the conditions are not themselves plainly unconstitutional.

[agentsteel53]

as long as the conditions are not themselves plainly unconstitutional.

I would think there is some kind of 10th-amendment argument here against the feds dictating a drinking age, as that should be generally a state issue.

I'm just nowhere near sufficiently a constitutional scholar to be able to come up with an argument either for, or against, a compelling federal interest in the legal drinking age, but instinctively I lean "against".

[1995hoo]

as long as the conditions are not themselves plainly unconstitutional.

I would think there is some kind of 10th-amendment argument here against the feds dictating a drinking age, as that should be generally a state issue.

I'm just nowhere near sufficiently a constitutional scholar to be able to come up with an argument either for, or against, a compelling federal interest in the legal drinking age, but instinctively I lean "against".

The Tenth Amendment argument was tried in the drinking-age case. It failed to the point where it wasn't even addressed when the case got to the Supreme Court. See South Dakota v. Dole, 483 US 203 (1987), text of which is linked below.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=483&page=203



BTW, if you want to read the speed limit case, it's at the link below. The panel there does address a Tenth Amendment argument. Nevada v. Skinner, 884 F2d 445 (9th Cir. 1989).

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/884/445/464252/


The thing about the Tenth Amendment is that historically it hasn't been given a lot of weight by the federal courts because it's been found to set forth a "truism" (whatever that means.....it's also a well-settled principle of constitutional interpretation that no provision is to be read so as to render it irrelevant, so the case law on this issue is questionable at best). But the big thing that you have to remember is that the courts have found that the states are indeed free to set a drinking age other than 21, and under the old NMSL they were free to adopt a speed limit higher than 55. They simply lost federal highway funds if they did it. The point is that the states are free to exercise their right to regulate these things as they see fit, but since they have no "right" to obtain federal highway funding, Congress is free to set that condition.

[agentsteel53]

the interstate problem resulting from the incentive, created by differing state drinking ages, for young persons to combine drinking and driving

well, I certainly can't agree with this reasoning.  it's not a variety in drinking age which causes drinking and driving; it's young people that have no idea how to drink safely... and treating alcohol as a forbidden fruit is certainly not going to help people's experience and knowledge!

[corco]

Quote
the interstate problem resulting from the incentive, created by differing state drinking ages, for young persons to combine drinking and driving

well, I certainly can't agree with this reasoning.  it's not a variety in drinking age which causes drinking and driving; it's young people that have no idea how to drink safely... and treating alcohol as a forbidden fruit is certainly not going to help people's experience and knowledge!

It's a chicken or the egg thing too- when I was in high school I often drove drunk because the perceived risk of getting caught drinking and driving was a lot less than the hassle of explaining to my parents why I wouldn't be coming home that night, or why I would be coming home that night without my car. It was oftentimes a choice of driving drunk or not going at all- my parents wouldn't let me leave if they knew I'd be drinking because they were  worried about me getting  in trouble for underage drinking. I was in a very rural part of Idaho, so taking the bus or riding a bike or something wasn't an option and frankly the odds of getting caught were almost nil (if I were to tally my entire high school graduating class plus the class above and the class below, that's around 9000 miles of drunk driving with exactly 1 DUI that I know of to show for it).

Now that I'm of age (or when I was still underage but in college away from home), I never ever drive drunk- there's simply no reason to.

But in my case, the drinking age actually catalyzed the dangerous behavior. I suspect a lot of people feel that way.

[1995hoo]

the interstate problem resulting from the incentive, created by differing state drinking ages, for young persons to combine drinking and driving

well, I certainly can't agree with this reasoning.  it's not a variety in drinking age which causes drinking and driving; it's young people that have no idea how to drink safely... and treating alcohol as a forbidden fruit is certainly not going to help people's experience and knowledge!

Agreed, but unfortunately that's not how the analysis works under principles of constitutional jurisprudence. Matters of this sort are normally subjected to "rational basis" review, which inquires whether the government action is "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest, even if that "legitimate" interest is merely hypothetical. The big key is that the method the government uses doesn't have to be the "best" method–it only has to be "rationally related." In the case of the drinking age, the "legitimate" interest was curbing youthful drinking and driving. Making it illegal for younger people to drink was a "rational means" of pursuing that goal. Whether some other method might be a better means of doing it is irrelevant for constitutional purposes.

The case law on this stuff is very well-established and it's the sort of stuff on which you spend a lot of time in your first-year constitutional law class. "Rational basis" review is a pretty low hurdle to clear. The stricter standards ("strict scrutiny" being the highest) generally come into play when there is some "fundamental" constitutional right or else a "suspect class" involved–for the most part, the "suspect class" means race-based classifications. The drinking age and the speed limit simply do not fall within either of these categories.

[agentsteel53]

sure, but in the presence of "rational basis", what is the point of even having a Tenth Amendment?  nearly anything can be argued by a sufficiently competent lawyer to meet such an abysmally low standard.

[1995hoo]

sure, but in the presence of "rational basis", what is the point of even having a Tenth Amendment?  nearly anything can be argued by a sufficiently competent lawyer to meet such an abysmally low standard.

Agreed. That's why I said I think so much of the precedent in that area is questionable....but what you and I think doesn't matter.

[Landshark]

We need to exploit our domestic resources!  Drill!  10 years ago they said we couldn't drill in the Arctic Mosquito Reserve because it would take 10 years to bring online...  Drill here in America! 

That's a rather simplistic approach to the problem. We are drilling in America already (the state of Oklahoma still exists) but it doesn't really help problems much, because prices don't accurately reflect supply and demand–people buying and trading "oil futures" end up jacking up the price by creating artificial "demand".

If you want to save money on gas buy a car that gets ridiculous gas mileage. There's plenty of discussion of that in the car rental thread in off-topic.

Quit believing the propaganda.  The politicians that put us into this mess are trying to distract people from  the truth.  Even if you buy the garbage, you should at least be offended that we have been unnecessarily exporting our wealth for fuel.

This map just shows off shore restrictions:

[agentsteel53]

Agreed. That's why I said I think so much of the precedent in that area is questionable....but what you and I think doesn't matter.

what is the origin of "rational basis"?  where was it first used to set a precedent?

[agentsteel53]

Quit believing the propaganda.  The politicians that put us into this mess are trying to distract people from  the truth.  Even if you buy the garbage, you should at least be offended that we have been unnecessarily exporting our wealth for fuel.

This map just shows off shore restrictions:

[map]

your post reads like propaganda, and just displaying the map without context makes it hard to tell if you are for, or against, off-shore drilling.

[1995hoo]

Agreed. That's why I said I think so much of the precedent in that area is questionable....but what you and I think doesn't matter.

what is the origin of "rational basis"?  where was it first used to set a precedent?

Oh, man, it's been a long time since my law school con law class (1996), but I'm pretty certain the general principles for "rational basis" review are derived from the principles set forth in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819). The Supreme Court was construing the Necessary and Proper Clause and deciding whether it allowed Congress to charter the Second Bank of the United States. The Court found that it did allow such an act, and John Marshall's opinion included the famous statement, ""Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional." Id. at 421. (If you want to read the opinion, you can find it at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=17&invol=316 , but I'll warn you that those early 1800s Supreme Court opinions can be a torture to read. It starts with an insanely long summary of the oral argument, which is not included in today's opinions, so if you want to skip to the actual opinion, do a search for the word "Marshall" and it will jump to where it says that he delivered the opinion of the Court.)

The actual jurisprudence in which the "rational basis" test was fleshed out began to develop in the late 1930s as the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the New Deal.

[Scott5114]

We need to exploit our domestic resources!  Drill!  10 years ago they said we couldn't drill in the Arctic Mosquito Reserve because it would take 10 years to bring online...  Drill here in America! 

That's a rather simplistic approach to the problem. We are drilling in America already (the state of Oklahoma still exists) but it doesn't really help problems much, because prices don't accurately reflect supply and demand–people buying and trading "oil futures" end up jacking up the price by creating artificial "demand".

If you want to save money on gas buy a car that gets ridiculous gas mileage. There's plenty of discussion of that in the car rental thread in off-topic.

Quit believing the propaganda.  The politicians that put us into this mess are trying to distract people from  the truth.  Even if you buy the garbage, you should at least be offended that we have been unnecessarily exporting our wealth for fuel.

This map just shows off shore restrictions:

What propaganda? You say "drill here in America". I know some folks who work in the oil fields in Healdton. We never stopped drilling in America.

Yes, there are environmental restrictions on some of the potential off-shore oil reserves, which is bad for the pricing of the stuff, but realistically, trying to change NIMBYs' minds is going to be a futile effort, so why not just do what you can actually do?

[Henry]

BTW, if you want to read the speed limit case, it's at the link below. The panel there does address a Tenth Amendment argument. Nevada v. Skinner, 884 F2d 445 (9th Cir. 1989).

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/884/445/464252/


The thing about the Tenth Amendment is that historically it hasn't been given a lot of weight by the federal courts because it's been found to set forth a "truism" (whatever that means.....it's also a well-settled principle of constitutional interpretation that no provision is to be read so as to render it irrelevant, so the case law on this issue is questionable at best). But the big thing that you have to remember is that the courts have found that the states are indeed free to set a drinking age other than 21, and under the old NMSL they were free to adopt a speed limit higher than 55. They simply lost federal highway funds if they did it. The point is that the states are free to exercise their right to regulate these things as they see fit, but since they have no "right" to obtain federal highway funding, Congress is free to set that condition.

Just goes to show how stupid it was in the first place!

[Landshark]

your post reads like propaganda, and just displaying the map without context makes it hard to tell if you are for, or against, off-shore drilling.

The map is easy to understand.  Green = allowed to drill, red = govt. drilling ban, yellow = foreign waters.   

[Landshark]

What propaganda? You say "drill here in America". I know some folks who work in the oil fields in Healdton. We never stopped drilling in America.

Yes, there are environmental restrictions on some of the potential off-shore oil reserves, which is bad for the pricing of the stuff, but realistically, trying to change NIMBYs' minds is going to be a futile effort, so why not just do what you can actually do?

Cut the crap, you know what I mean.  We have greatly limited our supply due to govt. restrictions.  We are only drilling on a fraction of the land/sea that we should be.  Instead, we export trillions of dollars that primarily line the pockets of royals and despots.  That wealth (and those jobs) should be here.

The environmental argument is stupid.  Where do you think they drill for oil more cleanly: the US or Nigeria?  America is killing itself because of stupidity!

[InterstateNG]

What if newly opened drilling areas were only accessible by toll roads?

[Brandon]

What propaganda? You say "drill here in America". I know some folks who work in the oil fields in Healdton. We never stopped drilling in America.

Yes, there are environmental restrictions on some of the potential off-shore oil reserves, which is bad for the pricing of the stuff, but realistically, trying to change NIMBYs' minds is going to be a futile effort, so why not just do what you can actually do?

Cut the crap, you know what I mean.  We have greatly limited our supply due to govt. restrictions.  We are only drilling on a fraction of the land/sea that we should be.  Instead, we export trillions of dollars that primarily line the pockets of royals and despots.  That wealth (and those jobs) should be here.

The environmental argument is stupid.  Where do you think they drill for oil more cleanly: the US or Nigeria?  America is killing itself because of stupidity!

Considering that Cuba is going to let China drill within 90 miles of Florida, the arguments against drilling around Florida are indeed stupid.

What if newly opened drilling areas were only accessible by toll roads?

In the water?

[agentsteel53]

Cut the crap, you know what I mean. 

I'll give you my mailing address.  You mail me feces and scissors.  I'll send you photos.

[J N Winkler]

It's a chicken or the egg thing too- when I was in high school I often drove drunk because the perceived risk of getting caught drinking and driving was a lot less than the hassle of explaining to my parents why I wouldn't be coming home that night, or why I would be coming home that night without my car. It was oftentimes a choice of driving drunk or not going at all- my parents wouldn't let me leave if they knew I'd be drinking because they were  worried about me getting  in trouble for underage drinking. I was in a very rural part of Idaho, so taking the bus or riding a bike or something wasn't an option and frankly the odds of getting caught were almost nil (if I were to tally my entire high school graduating class plus the class above and the class below, that's around 9000 miles of drunk driving with exactly 1 DUI that I know of to show for it).

I don't buy this as an argument for not having a minimum drinking age of 21.  Before the 21 minimum was handed down as a federal mandate, states had different minimum drinking ages but no state (IIRC) had a drinking age under 18.  Since people typically graduate from high school around age 18-19, this means that most high schoolers would be drinking underage even if there were a drinking age of 18.  It makes more sense as an argument for having no minimum drinking age at all, which may not even be a feasible public policy--let alone a good one--because of the need to control liquor sales, or alternatively in favor of having a culture of socializing children to drink responsibly from a young age.  I could go with the latter (mainly because that was how I was raised), but I don't see how that could be made to happen in this country, where dry drunks are constitutionally protected from state interference in their private lives.

I would like to think that most parents would be clearsighted enough to pick up a kid, no questions asked, when he or she calls and says, "Hi, Mom and Dad, I had something to drink and I don't think I should be driving," rather than make sure flowers are put on the gravestone every Memorial Day.  But I know too much about how myopic choice works to expect this to happen as a matter of course.

[citrus]

It's a chicken or the egg thing too- when I was in high school I often drove drunk because the perceived risk of getting caught drinking and driving was a lot less than the hassle of explaining to my parents why I wouldn't be coming home that night, or why I would be coming home that night without my car. It was oftentimes a choice of driving drunk or not going at all- my parents wouldn't let me leave if they knew I'd be drinking because they were  worried about me getting  in trouble for underage drinking. I was in a very rural part of Idaho, so taking the bus or riding a bike or something wasn't an option and frankly the odds of getting caught were almost nil (if I were to tally my entire high school graduating class plus the class above and the class below, that's around 9000 miles of drunk driving with exactly 1 DUI that I know of to show for it).

I don't buy this as an argument for not having a minimum drinking age of 21.  Before the 21 minimum was handed down as a federal mandate, states had different minimum drinking ages but no state (IIRC) had a drinking age under 18.  Since people typically graduate from high school around age 18-19, this means that most high schoolers would be drinking underage even if there were a drinking age of 18.  It makes more sense as an argument for having no minimum drinking age at all, which may not even be a feasible public policy--let alone a good one--because of the need to control liquor sales, or alternatively in favor of having a culture of socializing children to drink responsibly from a young age.  I could go with the latter (mainly because that was how I was raised), but I don't see how that could be made to happen in this country, where dry drunks are constitutionally protected from state interference in their private lives.

I would like to think that most parents would be clearsighted enough to pick up a kid, no questions asked, when he or she calls and says, "Hi, Mom and Dad, I had something to drink and I don't think I should be driving," rather than make sure flowers are put on the gravestone every Memorial Day.  But I know too much about how myopic choice works to expect this to happen as a matter of course.

I graduated high school at 17 (and know many others who have), and I think you could make the case to have the drinking age 21, or earlier if you have a high school diploma. This will (at least from a legal standpoint) keep alcohol out of high school and (sadly) give an additional incentive not to drop out.