Changes

12 bytes removed ,  05:37, September 9, 2016
clean up
Line 5: Line 5:  
In ''[[South Dakota v. Dole]]'' (1987), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] established a four-part test for whether a ''condition'' imposed by Congress on spending (whether a state raised its minimum drinking age to 21) was constitutional under the Spending Clause.  An expenditure will be upheld if:
 
In ''[[South Dakota v. Dole]]'' (1987), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] established a four-part test for whether a ''condition'' imposed by Congress on spending (whether a state raised its minimum drinking age to 21) was constitutional under the Spending Clause.  An expenditure will be upheld if:
   −
:1) it is for the general welfare,  
+
#it is for the general welfare,  
−
:2) the "conditions imposed are unambiguous,"  
+
#the "conditions imposed are unambiguous,"  
−
:3) "the conditions imposed are reasonably related to the purpose of the expenditure," and
+
#"the conditions imposed are reasonably related to the purpose of the expenditure," and
−
:4) the condition does not violate any independent constitutional guaranty.
+
#the condition does not violate any independent constitutional guaranty.
 
   
 
   
 
Justices [[William Brennan]] and [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] dissented.
 
Justices [[William Brennan]] and [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] dissented.
Block, SkipCaptcha, apieditor, Automoderated users, Bots, edit, ratelimit-exempt
58,183

edits