concerning the constitutionality of a statute are reviewed de novo.”); Gable v. Patton, 142 F.3d 940, 944 (6th Cir.1998) (“Because the four provisions are challenged with regard to facial constitutionality, thus implicating only issues of law, ... our standard of review is de novo.”). B. Spending Clause challenge We start with first principles. The Spending Clause gives Congress the authority “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 1. This authority includes the power to require states to comply with federal directives as a condi tion of receiving federal funds. See South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 206, 107 S.Ct. 2793, 97 L.Ed.2d 171 (1987) (<HOLDING>). In addition, Congress may use its spending
holding that the full faith and credit clause does not require a state to apply another states law in violation of its own legitimate public policy holding that where a conflict between state and federal law is alleged it must be reasonable to conclude that congress would have intended to preclude the state law in question since it would make little sense to preempt state law in order to serve the purposes underlying federal legislation if congress itself would not require or admit of preemption of state authority holding that for federal court to grant full faith and credit to state court judgment state proceedings must satisfy the minimum procedural requirements of the fourteenth amendments due process clause holding that a party may not raise a new claim in its response to a dispositive motion holding that congress may require each state to raise its minimum drinking age to 21 in order to receive its full share of federal highway funds