t between freedom and order. Supporters argued that lives were at stake, and this justified government intervention. Others maintained that this issue was in the state jurisdiction and it limited the states and citizens freedom. It is illegal for Congress to impose a national drinking age. However, the constitution says nothing about indirectly trying to control areas outside of the federal governments sphere. The court upheld the use of crossover sanctions in tying highway funds to the drinking age. Congress acknowledged its constitutional limits by not instituting legislation against the minimum drinking age, at the same time using money as a bargaining tool to get what it wanted.Rebalancing the power has been a long-standing item on conservative agendas. Conversely, liberals have been apprehensive about the motives behind devolution. The climate of today suggests tilting the balance of power slightly back to the states. There are problems with it, though, and lack of trust is one of them. A recent example is Mississippis decision to keep the confederacy logo on its flag. How will civil rights and liberties fare in a modified system? Although merely a symbol of pride to Mississippi, the nations response is fear that civil rights will again be betrayed. "States' rights" is still a recent euphemism for state-condoned racism. Liberals fear that the states will try to reverse certain rights, rule against privacy issues, or condone racism. They do not trust state freedoms in regards to marriage contracts, abortion and use of illegal drugs. While past federalist reforms have centered on money, this age seems to be concerned with social issues.Aims toward deregulation of national government power started in the 1970's with Nixon. Should the federal government have so much control over the grants given to the states? How much money should the government be spending on social programs? Republicans or people who favor states rights, like block...
