3 ms·
Just listen to the overwhelming silence from the “states’ rights” crowd.
by quink 2mo ago
Just listen to the overwhelming silence from the “states’ rights” crowd.
- brink 2mo agoThis has little to do with NY governing NY. NY was attempting to govern Kalshi in other states, which it doesn't have the authority to do.
- sigmarule 2mo agoFalse: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49266746 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49266746
- anigbrowl 2mo agoLegal filings by the State of New York indicate that this was not in fact the case and they were asking Kalshi to halt offering their product to the public in the state of NY only.
- freejazz 2mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- waterheater 2mo agoMost people invoke the "states' rights" platitude when the federal government oversteps on constitutional matters that haven't been specifically legislated. In this case, Congress already passed a law regulating these activities, and it seems pretty clear-cut that Kalshi engages in interstate commerce, so New York will likely lose if this gets to the Supreme Court. That's not to say I think event prediction markets are good. In fact, I think they should be banned. That doesn't change my analysis of the current situation.
- wredcoll 2mo ago> In this case, Congress already passed a law regulating these activities, and it seems pretty clear-cut that Kalshi engages in interstate commerce, so New York will likely lose if this gets to the Supreme Court. That is a wild take. Interstate regulatory power does not prevent a state from passing laws regulating things happening inside its own state.
- waterheater 2mo agoIf no federal law exists on that subject, then yes, that's how the Supremacy Clause works. However, an existing federal law preempts state regulations. As an example, let's say Congress deemed fidget spinners a serious hazard to society. Congress can take two broad approaches to deal with them: (1) regulate, or (2) ban. In the first case, any state laws regulating fidget spinners could theoretically continue to exist, so long as those laws do not conflict with the federal laws and states are allowed to have additional regulations beyond those federal. In the second case, those laws become moot, as fidget spinners are not allowed. Another reason why this works can be seen in the dynamics of data control laws like the HIPAA, COPPA, and CCPA (they're not privacy laws but data control). If you are an entity operating in the US covered under HIPAA or COPAA, it doesn't matter if your corporate headquarters are in California or Delaware; you must comply with those laws. With the CCPA, California decided that it wanted additional data control laws in the vein of the EU's GDPR, and that's their right because (1) no existing broad-scale federal data control law currently exists and (2) the Constitution does not give Congress the exclusive power to regulate data flows.
- TheCoelacanth 2mo agoThe Commodity Futures Trading Commission regulates (checks notes) trading of commodities futures. It's a pretty wild interpretation to claim that the Knicks winning is a commodity.