3 ms·
> I don't quite understand what they're saying here...I guess the idea is that Congress can regulate gambling -- assuming some constitutional justification like
by tathougies 8y ago
> I don't quite understand what they're saying here...I guess the idea is that Congress can regulate gambling -- assuming some constitutional justification like the commerce clause -- but they can't restrict what laws states pass?
The federal government can make it illegal for people to place sports bet or run a gambling ring, because it has authority and sovereignty over the people in the United States.
The federal government has rather wide authority. For example, Congress could make it illegal for American citizens to gamble in Canada (In the same way, it used to be illegal to do business with Cuba). However, Congress cannot pass a law saying that Canada cannot legalize gambling, because the government of the United States has no authority over the sovereign government of Canada.
Similarly, the federal government can make it illegal for its residents to gamble. However, it cannot exercise authority not directly given to it over the state governments, because the federal government has no authority over the sovereign state governments. The state governments and the feds share sovereignty over the boundaries of each state, but the state government retains all aspects of sovereignty not explicitly given to the feds. Gambling is one of those things that the states retain sovereignty over.
- mobilefriendly 8y agoYour comment is completely untethered from any understanding of the Constitution and American federalist system. Authority and sovereignty in the U.S. flows upward from the people to the states and then to the federal government. The federal government likely cannot make it illegal to place a sports bet, which is why Congress was trying to commandeer the state governments to do it. Federal sovereignty is explicitly limited (particularly through the Bill of Rights) and not nearly as arbitrary and sweeping as you think it is. Even your sanctions example is wrong, the U.S. could not just make it illegal for Americans to gamble in Canada. Such a narrow provision would be unconstitutional, the federal government would have to demonstrate a national foreign policy reason (a legitimate function of the federal government) for it to pass such a law and have it survive court challenge.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> The federal government likely cannot make it illegal to place a sports bet There is a much stronger interstate commerce clause claim for a very broad prohibition here (say, effecting any betting either on any competition involving an interstate or international sports league, or where the bet crosses state or national borders, or using regulated wire or broadcast communication channels) than for many things that have survived challenge the whole way through the Supreme Court, so while I recognize that many people have narrow personal interpretations of the Commerce Clause power, I don't think that is actually a real practical barrier here.
- mobilefriendly 8y agoI agree but that's something fairly short of the total federal prohibition discussed on this thread. (The other federal angle, used against otherwise legal offshore betting, is banning bank processing). I also suspect this court is looking to limit the current near-limitless boundaries of the Commerce Clause.
- tathougies 8y ago> The federal government likely cannot make it illegal to place a sports bet That is my personal interpretation of the constitution. But if you read the supreme court decision, the majority opinion states that they can.
- _acme 8y agoAccording to the current Cuban Assets Control Regulations, it is still, in most cases and circumstances, against the law for Americans to spend money in Cuba without a special license issued by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).