The indirect regulation of areas outside of the federal government's enumerated powers through its spending power seems frustrating for state legislatures. It allows the federal government to enact their will on state laws with a loophole that also allows it to claim passivity. While I understand the need to in certain cases, such as creating uniformity with the legal drinking age for the safety of youth, I can also see how states would find it belittling to their own authority. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U. S. 203 (1987). For this reason, the federal government should be allowed to indirectly influence state legislature through its spending power, but only when absolutely necessary for the general welfare. Helvering v. Davis, 301 U. S. 619 (1937). This still keeps the power divided, but unites it when necessary for the betterment of the country as a whole, thus keeping in line with the concept of federalism (Mann & Roberts, 2023, p. 68). Another area of conflict between the states and the federal government especially pertinent to today's political climate is the legal use of marijuana. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 5 (2005). It is a very gray area in regards to what is an "absolutely necessary" situation for the federal government to indirectly influence areas outside its enumerated powers, so it is a good thing there are courts to determine these situations on a case by case basis.

What would be a good response to a discussion like this?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The detailed answer for the above question is provided belo... View the full answer