Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

In my 19 years as a college teacher and administrator, I have never before felt compelled to write a letter to the House of Representatives; however, when it comes to the proposed 21 year old drinking age, my feelings and experiences are too strong to deny. As you may know, Illinois has a 21 year old drinking law; however, our friends across the river in Iowa permit drinking at 19 and, since many of our students find the trip across the Mississippi quite convenient, I have been able to watch the effect of that law on our students. Although no age is a perfect predictor of maturity, it is clear on our campus that the younger the student, the lower the quality of decisions made involving alcohol consumption. In my opinion, if the minimum age for drinking were raised nationally to 21 years of age, the level of vandalism and attrition would decrease significantly on our campus and achievement would increase marketedly.

I applaud you and your colleagues for sponsoring this bill and wish you success. Sincerely,

John W. Hullett

Dean of Student Services

JWH:dlw

Washington, D.C. 20540

Congressional Research Service
The Library of Congress

ANALYSIS OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF H.R. 3870, A BILL
TO RESTRICT THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Questions have been raised regarding the constitutionality of H.R 3870 (afterwards cited to as the "bill"), a bill to restrict the sale of alcoholic beverages in interstate commerce. This report examines the bill within the context of three areas of the Constitution: the TwentyFirst Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the Tenth Amendment. While it appears that the bill would probably survive constitutional challenge, only a judicial review could be absolutely determinative.

An analysis of the Twenty-First Amendment's legislative history and subsequent judicial interpretations leads to the conclusion that the bill is probably constitutional from the point of view of this Amendment. It seems likely that the "federalist" approach to the Amendment, which preserves federal control over liquor, would be persuasive for judicial interpretation and this position would support the constitutionality of the bill. In its most recent examination of the Amendment, the Supreme Court proposed a sort of balancing test, examining the competing federal and state interests. (California Retail Liquor Dealers Association v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U.S. 97 (1980)). Applying the Midcal balancing test to the bill, it appears that a strong argument can be made in favor of the constitutionality of the bill. Within the context of the bill, the controlling question may be whether the state interest in providing alcohol to persons under the age of twentyone outweighs the federal interest in eliminating drunken driving.

Congress clearly has the power to regulate the commerce under the Constitution. The Court has examined and upheld a wide variety of legislation which was enacted to protect the public from certain dangers. A rational basis" test has been developed for determining the constitutionality of legislation. In applying this test, it must be determined whether the congressional legislative scheme which regulates the activity affecting interstate commerce really has a rational basis. Applying this test to the bill, it appears that the regulated activity--the control of alcohol with the aim of reducing drunken driving--affects interstate commerce and therefore is clearly a rational basis for this conclusion.

It does not appear that the Tenth Amendment is an impediment to the constitutionalty of the legislation. A recent court case has articulated a four-step test which must be met for federal legislation to be deemed unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment. It does not appear that the bill can be applied to all of the criteria set forth in this test and is therefore not in conflict with the Tenth Amendment.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

ANALYSIS OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF H.R. 3870, A BILL

TO RESTRICT THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE

INTRODUCTION

Issues

This report will address issues regarding the constitutionality
1/

of H.R. 3870 (afterwards cited to as the "bill"), a bill designed

to impose a nationwide ban on the sale of alcoholic beverages to minors. From our analysis, it appears that the provisions of the bill are probably constitutional, although contrary arguments could be raised and only a judicial determination may finally resolve the bill's constitution

al status.

Summary of the Bill

The bill is designed to restrict the sale of alcoholic beverages in interstate commerce. Section 1 of the bill incorporates Congress' finding that drinking drivers are a major cause of automobile accidents, that many of these drinking drivers are under the age of twenty-one, and that prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to those persons under age twenty-one is necessary for the public safety and welfare. Section 2 prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of twentyone if the beverage has traveled in interstate commerce. Section 3 defines the term alcoholic beverage for the purposes of the legislation.

1/ H.R. 3870, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (1983).

CRS-2

Section 4 subjects violators to a maximum civil penalty of $5000

and directs the Secretary of Commerce (afterwards referred to as Secretary) to assess such a penalty by an order made on the record after providing an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. The section further authorizes the Secretary to compromise or modify such penalties subject to judicial review for persons aggrieved by civil penalty assesments, restricts petitions for such judicial review to a specified time period, and directs the Attorney General to recover penalties in arrears in a civil action in federal district court.

Section 5 authorizes citizens' civil actions to enjoin alleged violations of the alcoholic beverage sales proscription under this statute and prescribes procedures and appropriate venue for civil actions. The section confers jurisdiction upon federal district courts over such suits, without regard to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties. It also authorizes the court to award to the plaintiff court costs, attorney's fees, and expert witness fees.

35-289 0-84-39

« AnteriorContinuar »