|
By Walter
Williams
CNS Commentary
March 21, 2001
Last year, President Clinton signed legislation that orders
states to change their statutes so that .08 is the
blood/alcohol concentration (BAC) for arrest for
drunk-driving. The BAC edict came as a part of the new Federal
Transportation Appropriations Bill. States have until Oct. 1,
2003, to pass a .08 BAC or face withholding of 2 percent of
their federal highway-construction funds. States that have not
passed a .08 BAC law by 2004 will lose 4 percent of their
federal highway-construction funds, 6 percent by 2005 and 8
percent thereafter. The Commonwealth of Virginia and a number
of states already have .08 blood/alcohol concentration as
their standard; Colorado has a stricter standard of .05 BAC.
States such as Maryland and 30 others use BAC of .10 as their
legal definition of drunk-driving.
This heavy-handed federal edict is offensive, but only the
stupid would see an objection to it as tantamount to being an
advocate for drunk-driving. Drunk-driving is a clear reckless
disregard for the lives and property of others and should be
punished. The issue is not whether there should be a .08 or
.10 BAC. The important issue, Americans constantly ignore to
our detriment, is whether Congress has exceeded its
constitutional authority by mandating a particular
blood/alcohol level. Congress has no such authority; setting
blood/alcohol levels is a state and local function.
Republican and Democrat members of Congress alike have once
again demonstrated constitutional ignorance and/or disrespect.
You say, "How? Williams, explain yourself." The
Constitution, that both presidents and congressmen swear on
the Bible to uphold and defend, includes, "The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people." The 10th Amendment has
not been repealed, and nowhere in the Constitution has
Congress been given authority to regulate blood/alcohol
concentrations for drunk-driving. It does have authority to do
so in the federal jurisdiction -- Washington, D.C.,
congressmen know this. If they simply ordered the states to
set a .08 BAC, the Supreme Court just might rule their action
unconstitutional, so they turn to extortion. When you and I
purchase gasoline, we pay a hefty federal-user tax earmarked
for highway construction and maintenance. What Clinton and
Congress have ruled is: We will pay the highway tax, but we'll
get our full share of it only if we're obedient.
Washington's heavy-handedness should be challenged. Washington
should learn that two can play the threat game; but it
requires principled and brave state governors and legislators.
Here's what I propose. States should set up a Federal Tax Fund
escrow account. Then state legislatures should enact a law
requiring all persons liable for any federal tax, that's a
component of the highway-users fund, to remit those taxes
directly to the state treasurer's Federal Tax Fund. The
state's revenue department would make monthly remittances of
the receipts to the IRS along with a list of payees and
respective amounts paid.
If Washington penalizes the state by withholding
highway-construction funds for not enacting a .08
blood/alcohol concentration, the state treasurer would be
ordered to impose a surcharge on the account to make up for
the federally withheld funds for its highway construction and
remit the adjusted-fund balance.
It's high time that we send Washington, D.C., a clear message
that when the states came together in 1787, they created the
federal government as their agent. As such the federal
government is a creature of the states -- not the other way
around. It's going to take brave and principled Americans to
send that message; but, alas, bravery and principle are in
short supply these days. |
HOME >>
