My interpretation of the case at hand is that Congress was allowed to utilize it's federal spending power to influence the laws set by a state because the federal government was outside of it's constitutional authority for setting a national drinking age. In my opinion, this contradicts the idea of federalism, where there is clear separation between state and federal governments. Although, I can see why the case was ruled in favor of Dole. The court's consideration took into account 5 items, of which 2 were up for interpretation - coercion and the 10th amendment. Enumerated powers under the federal government allow the federal government to control tax collections and spending, so therefor it was not deemed unconstitutional. I disagree with the ruling on the basis of no coercion present, however. The 5% loss in federal funds, while though small, is still disguised as public coercion in my opinion because it may paint a picture that politicians are not looking in the best interest of their citizens by not accepting federal dollars. To sum it up, I do not believe the federal government should be able to use spending powers outside of its enumerated powers to enact their agenda. 

A great example outlining disputes between the federal government and states, is McCulloch v. Maryland. In this example, Maryland challenged that their laws enacted to tax banks charted outside of the state were constitutional. The federal government charted the 2nd National Bank for controlling unregulated currency, and therefor was subject to taxation under Maryland's law. The court ruled in favor of McCulloch, who was a federal worker that refused to pay the tax, but further dived the concept of who has ultimate control - state or federal?

One example today I can think of where a dispute exists between the federal government and states is the federal government wanting to impose a $15 minimum national minimum wage. If this would ever be established, I believe it could be subject to the Supremacy clause in court because current law allows an employee to take the higher of the 2 wages if receiving both state and federal. The supremacy clause may allow the federal government to impose this minimum constitutionally. 

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