4 ms·

The main idea is that Congress can decide if it is legal or not, but to say it's illegal everywhere except for Nevada makes it a non-federal statute as they are

by raiyu 8y ago

The main idea is that Congress can decide if it is legal or not, but to say it's illegal everywhere except for Nevada makes it a non-federal statute as they are arbitrarily deciding that some state gets an exception, making it non constitutional. That is why it was stricken. If it said it was illegal everywhere, then the supreme court would have upheld that.

jessriedel 8y ago
> they are arbitrarily deciding that some state gets an exception, making it non constitutional. > ...That is why it was stricken Do you have quote from the decision to support this? It seems to conflict with what I excerpted and the analysis I've seen.
- T-hawk 8y ago
  It wasn't arbitrary. The states that had pre-existing laws kept them. The original decision prevented states from passing new laws to enable gambling, but didn't strike down or repeal existing laws, thus those states essentially got grandfathered in. Media reports like to spin it as "sports gambling is illegal except in XYZ states", to make it look like favoritism and the story inciteful, but really the only thing distinguishing those states is legacy code.
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    I think you're disagreeing with raiyu, not me?
pdabbadabba 8y ago
I don't think this is correct. As I read it, the issue was that, as others have said, the federal government attempted to regulate what laws a state could pass (which is related to a broader body of law about federal laws that compel states* to enact certain laws or to implement federal laws). Note, however, that this not to say that congress can't make its own laws and that, if it does, they would override state laws. Maybe one way of summing this up that makes more sense of the distinction is this: Congress can make laws that regulate behavior as a general matter (subject to other constitutional restrictions), but cannot regulate directly the behavior of state governments themselves. It's unusual for congress to do the former but not the latter, but that appears to have been the case here.
- kenjackson 8y ago
  Why would Congress do this? Is it because there is some other constitutional requirement they would be in violation of if they just made it illegal at the federal level?
  - wnoise 8y ago
    1. There would be a backlash for outlawing it where it was already legal, and hence had an industry depending on it. In fact, there was an option to even legalize it in places so long as they did it within a year. 2. Enforcing it at the federal level costs money. It's easier to pass a ban where you force the states to pay the costs.
  - mobilefriendly 8y ago
    Yes, the Tenth Amendment reserves powers not explicitly given to the federal government to the states and the people. Local sports and poker betting is already regulated by the states and a federal interstate commerce claim to regulate it is fairly weak.
    - _acme 8y ago
      Pursuant to Gonzales v. Raich, which ruled that Congress could criminalize the production and use of homegrown marijuana for personal use, the interstate effect of gambling in any form on any activity is almost certainly sufficient for Congress to regulate or prohibit any or all gambling activity. In addition, the Ninth Circuit has held that Congress has Commerce Clause authority to criminalize possession of homemade machine guns. Congress has chosen to allow states to regulate gambling to a certain extent, which explains its legality in various forms in the various states.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Why would Congress do this? To transfer enforcement costs, including for hosting civil actions outside of the situations where state law claims get into federal court, to state law enforcement and courts.
  - 8y ago
gowld 8y ago
When did that Constitutional interpretation change? State-specific laws have an infamous history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise
mobilefriendly 8y ago
Your comment has no basis in fact. The decision has nothing to do with some type of equal protection for states and in no way addressed whether or not Congress even has the power to ban gambling everywhere.

by raiyu 8y ago

jessriedel 8y ago

> they are arbitrarily deciding that some state gets an exception, making it non constitutional. > ...That is why it was stricken Do you have quote from the decision to support this? It seems to conflict with what I excerpted and the analysis I've seen.

T-hawk 8y ago
It wasn't arbitrary. The states that had pre-existing laws kept them. The original decision prevented states from passing new laws to enable gambling, but didn't strike down or repeal existing laws, thus those states essentially got grandfathered in. Media reports like to spin it as "sports gambling is illegal except in XYZ states", to make it look like favoritism and the story inciteful, but really the only thing distinguishing those states is legacy code.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  I think you're disagreeing with raiyu, not me?

pdabbadabba 8y ago

I don't think this is correct. As I read it, the issue was that, as others have said, the federal government attempted to regulate what laws a state could pass (which is related to a broader body of law about federal laws that compel states* to enact certain laws or to implement federal laws). Note, however, that this not to say that congress can't make its own laws and that, if it does, they would override state laws. Maybe one way of summing this up that makes more sense of the distinction is this: Congress can make laws that regulate behavior as a general matter (subject to other constitutional restrictions), but cannot regulate directly the behavior of state governments themselves. It's unusual for congress to do the former but not the latter, but that appears to have been the case here.

kenjackson 8y ago
Why would Congress do this? Is it because there is some other constitutional requirement they would be in violation of if they just made it illegal at the federal level?
- wnoise 8y ago
  1. There would be a backlash for outlawing it where it was already legal, and hence had an industry depending on it. In fact, there was an option to even legalize it in places so long as they did it within a year. 2. Enforcing it at the federal level costs money. It's easier to pass a ban where you force the states to pay the costs.
- mobilefriendly 8y ago
  Yes, the Tenth Amendment reserves powers not explicitly given to the federal government to the states and the people. Local sports and poker betting is already regulated by the states and a federal interstate commerce claim to regulate it is fairly weak.
  - _acme 8y ago
    Pursuant to Gonzales v. Raich, which ruled that Congress could criminalize the production and use of homegrown marijuana for personal use, the interstate effect of gambling in any form on any activity is almost certainly sufficient for Congress to regulate or prohibit any or all gambling activity. In addition, the Ninth Circuit has held that Congress has Commerce Clause authority to criminalize possession of homemade machine guns. Congress has chosen to allow states to regulate gambling to a certain extent, which explains its legality in various forms in the various states.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Why would Congress do this? To transfer enforcement costs, including for hosting civil actions outside of the situations where state law claims get into federal court, to state law enforcement and courts.
- 8y ago

gowld 8y ago

When did that Constitutional interpretation change? State-specific laws have an infamous history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise

mobilefriendly 8y ago

Your comment has no basis in fact. The decision has nothing to do with some type of equal protection for states and in no way addressed whether or not Congress even has the power to ban gambling everywhere.