[rocqua]

> federal laws ... use funding carrots rather than criminal-punishment sticks

There are limits to this, some of which are set out in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). These limits (quoting wikipedia) are:

* The spending must promote "the general welfare."

* The condition must be unambiguous.

* The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs."

* The condition imposed on the states must not, in itself, be unconstitutional.

* The condition must not be coercive.

Especially the last condition is relevant. It means the withdrawal of funding cannot be so harsh as to be clearly funding. I believe the actual wording used is that the threat of withdrawal cannot be a 'gun to the head' of the states.

[arwineap]

Do you have a background in law?

Reading through this comment thread is very interesting, I just can't help but try to understand how so many geeks are so well versed in case law :)

[rocqua]

Not in the slightest, I recall hearing about this on the "What can trump teach us about con-law" (constitutional law).

I don't even live in america, but the system is interesting and rather well represented in the media. Few countries are as attached to their constitution as the US.

[chasontherobot]

The law is just a programming language for government, thus a lot of programmers are attracted to it.

[AnimalMuppet]

Especially since we see the government in need of debugging, but we don't see the cause of the bugs in the source code...