It's not over

sparkman2 said:

I wonder if it would be so far fetched for the gubment to pass some sort of regulation, whether it be by EO or by Congress with a stipulation that if any state doesn't comply with the regulation then that state will lose ALL federal funding for schools, health care, roads, etc. :question: I believe that a cash strapped state would capitulate to any requirement from the feds just to keep from losing the money.

Click to expand...

peter nap said:

It's standard procedure Sparkman. Not ALL Federal money, but some.

That's what gave us seat belt laws, standards of excellence, Highway speed limits.....many, many things.

Click to expand...

scouser said:

I remember reading one of my "this is how it's done in the USA and why" books soon after I arrived here and it was talking about the Louisiana/Texas border back in the days when those states had different drinking ages. One was 18 and one was 21 and it talked about a stretch of highway that was notorious for accidents due to 18-20 year olds traveling to get alcohol. It went on to say that the federal government couldn't order the age to be 21 throughout the country, so the way they got the 18 state (and I can't remember which of the 2 was 18 and which was 21, and I can't find the book right now to check) to change their law to 21 was to cut federal highway funding, justifying it by claiming the fact of there being accidents on a road linking 2 states gave them the right to cut federal highway funds until the drinking age was raised.

Click to expand...

sparkman2 said:

I wonder if it would be so far fetched for the gubment to pass some sort of regulation, whether it be by EO or by Congress with a stipulation that if any state doesn't comply with the regulation then that state will lose ALL federal funding for schools, health care, roads, etc. :question: I believe that a cash strapped state would capitulate to any requirement from the feds just to keep from losing the money.

Click to expand...