In South Dakota v.Dole,the validity of a federal statute granting federal funds for state highways to only those states in which 21 is the legal drinking age was questioned.What did the U.S.Supreme Court rule?
A)The Court upheld the statute only in the case of states that could provide matching funds;and if matching funds could not be provided,the Court ruled that Congress was overreaching its power in regard to partnership between state and federal government.
B)The Court upheld the statute.
C)The Court upheld the statute only in the case of states that could not provide matching funds;and if matching funds could be provided,the Court ruled that there was insufficient reason for the law.
D)The Court struck the statute on the basis that it violated the taxing and spending powers of the federal government under the U.S.Constitution.
E)The Court struck the statute on the basis that it violated the Commerce Clause under the U.S.Constitution.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

A)In the 1987 case South Dakota v.Dole,the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute that grants federal funds for state highways to only those states in which 21 is the legal drinking age.
B)In the 1987 case South Dakota v.Dole,the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute that grants federal funds for state highways to only those states in which 21 is the legal drinking age.
C)In the 1987 case South Dakota v.Dole,the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute that grants federal funds for state highways to only those states in which 21 is the legal drinking age.
D)In the 1987 case South Dakota v.Dole,the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute that grants federal funds for state highways to only those states in which 21 is the legal drinking age.

In South Dakota V