[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

NFL Players WILL Respect the Flag's Authoritah, Says Commissioner

Trump lawyer 'paid by Ukraine' to arrange White House talks

FBI Agent at Mike Flynn Interrogation Is Ready to Testify Against McCabe, Strzok and Comey!

96-Year-Old WWII Vet in a Wheelchair, Groped & Molested by TSA—For "Freedom"

This Is Why Evangelical Christians Love Israel

St. Louis Town Agrees to Stop Bankrolling Itself by Fining Its Residents into the Poorhouse

A Nation of Narcs

Surveillance Target Sam Clovis Discusses His Contacts With FBI/CIA Intelligence Agent Stefan Halper

Stormy Daniels' Lawyer Ordered To Pay $10 Million Fine In Legal Feud

New Poll Shows GOP Now Leads In 2018 Generic Ballot

Portsmouth man added "copyright" and his screen name to his child porn, feds say

Can a pope change moral truth?

The appointment of Robert Mueller violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution... ·

Investigators Admit Victims in Texas Shooting Could’ve Been Killed by Police Fire

Innocent Man Detained, Assaulted by Cops Because He Had ‘Vegetation’ on His Window

La Jolla hardware store forced to stop giving away free popcorn

Pompeo to Iran: Get ready for "strongest sanctions in history"

Germany’s military is dysfunctional and they have no plans to fix it

ISIS Militants Leave Damascus Under Evacuation Deal As Assad Takes Full Control Of Capital

At the royal wedding, why was the heretic allowed to give the homily?

Dershowitz on Russia Probe: 'They’re All Longterm Reps Who Hated Trump!'

Here's How Much The Federal Government Paid Alleged Trump Campaign 'Spy' In 2016

Don't mess with bears

How Trump Can Dismantle Obamacare Without Congress

Worker Co-Ops Are Wildly Successful But U.S. Media Ignores them

Why Socrates Hated Democracy

Europe may be realizing America isn’t their sugar daddy or punching bag

Has China succumbed to the art of the deal?

John Bolton: We May Punish Europe If They Don’t Pull Out Of Iran Deal Too

Stop Calling the GOP the Party of Small Government

FEDS DROP BOMBSHELL: Comey & Lynch Colluded Entrap, Wiretap Trump

Bad news for green energy lovers: US oil & gas are booming

Poles Blasting EU for Gay Flag

Santa Fe High School shooting: Suspect identified as Dimitrios Pagourtzis

As The Church Slept, Satan Crept In And The Masses Embraced The Doctrines Of Demons

Geoengineering Is ‘Being Used As A Weapon; An All-Out Assault Against Life’

Government Implements Illegal Gag Order On National Weather Service & NOAA Employees

Smart Phones Make Dumb People

Cop Dumps 7 Rounds into Tiny Woman As She Walked Away from Him Holding a Shovel

ANOTHER MUELLER GAFFE: Lawyers Defending Russian Firm Tell Court Named Employees DON’T WORK FOR THEM – Mueller MADE IT UP

I said Israel should be ashamed – now I am the one who is ashamed

White House weighs in on Laurel vs. Yanny debate (Progressive scolds: That’s not funny, you monsters)

Researchers Find Breathalyzers To Be Just More Faulty Cop Tech Capable Of Putting Innocent People In Jail

FBI's Bust Of Black Open Carry Advocate Predicated On An InfoWars Video Ends In Dismissed Indictment

Pelosi gibberish, bizarre laughing; stares off during brain freeze (Dementia?)

Missing Files Motivated the Leak of Michael Cohen’s Financial Records

Cop Sees Camera, Fears For His Life - Threatens to Kill Photographer for Filming

New Hate Crime Bill Protecting Cops Passes House Despite Clear 10th Amendment Violation

Republicans Love Torture

In 1967, the CIA Created the Label "Conspiracy Theorists" ... to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the "Official" Narrative


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: SCOTUS lays off online betting to states
Source: HotAir
URL Source: https://hotair.com/archives/2018/05 ... ays-off-online-betting-states/
Published: May 14, 2018
Author: Ed Morrissey
Post Date: 2018-05-14 16:27:53 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 68
Comments: 6

What were the odds? They turned out to be 6:3 in favor of allowing states to determine if they want legalized online gambling in their state, and the revenue that flows from it. Writing for the six-person majority in Murphy v NCAA/ NJTHA v NCAA, Justice Samuel Alito called the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act passed in 1992 “a direct affront to state sovereignty”:
The U.S. Supreme Court acted Monday to bust Nevada’s monopoly on legal sports betting, allowing more states to get in on the action and reap the tax benefits.

The court, in a 6-3 ruling, struck down a federal law that required states to ban gambling on the outcome of sporting events. The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act was highly unusual: It did not ban sports gambling nationwide as a matter of federal law, but it said the states were not allowed to permit it. (Nevada was grandfathered in when the law was passed in 1992.) …

New Jersey and then-Gov. Chris Christie challenged the federal ban, arguing that it violated the Tenth Amendment, which the Supreme Court has said prohibits federal laws that compel states to carry out federal dictates. The gambling law, Christie said, commandeered the states by forcing them to prohibit sports wagering.

Alito and the majority ruled that PASPA violated the “anticommandeering” principle, which recognizes that Congress has no role in dictating to state legislatures what laws to pass or not to pass. The four conservative justices all voted to overturn PASPA and were joined by centrist Anthony Kennedy and liberal Elana Kagan.  Alito writes that while this may sound like an arcane issue, it goes to the heart of constitutional limitations on the federal government and the sovereignty of states to govern themselves:
The Constitution limits state sovereignty in several ways. It directly prohibits the States from exercising some attributes of sovereignty. See, e.g., Art. I, §10. Some grants of power to the Federal Government have been held to impose implicit restrictions on the States. …

And the Constitution indirectly restricts the States by granting certain legislative powers to Congress, see Art. I, §8, while providing in the Supremacy Clause that federal law is the “supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding,” Art. VI, cl. 2. This means that when federal and state law conflict, federal law prevails and state law is preempted.

The legislative powers granted to Congress are sizable, but they are not unlimited. The Constitution confers on Congress not plenary legislative power but only certain enumerated powers. Therefore, all other legislative power is reserved for the States, as the Tenth Amendment confirms. And conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States. The anticommandeering doctrine simply represents the recognition of this limit on congressional authority.

Alito provides a rare, although not unprecedented, defense of the Tenth Amendment. The wonder here may be that both Kagan and Breyer signed onto it. After establishing the principle, Alito explains that PASPA stepped all over it:
The PASPA provision at issue here—prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling—violates the anticommandeering rule. That provision unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do. And this is true under either our interpretation or that advocated by respondents and the United States. In either event, state legislatures are put under the direct control of Congress. It is as if federal officers were installed in state legislative chambers and were armed with the authority to stop legislators from voting on any offending proposals. A more direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine.

Neither respondents nor the United States contends that Congress can compel a State to enact legislation, but they say that prohibiting a State from enacting new laws is another matter. …

This distinction is empty. It was a matter of happenstance that the laws challenged in New York and Printz commanded “affirmative” action as opposed to imposing a prohibition. The basic principle—that Congress cannot issue direct orders to state legislatures—applies in either event.

Here is an illustration. PASPA includes an exemption for States that permitted sports betting at the time of enactment, §3704, but suppose Congress did not adopt such an exemption. Suppose Congress ordered States with legalized sports betting to take the affirmative step of criminalizing that activity and ordered the remaining States to retain their laws prohibiting sports betting. There is no good reason why the former would intrude more deeply on state sovereignty than the latter.

This decision nearly went 7-2 rather than 6-3, except for the decision to strike down the whole law. Stephen Breyer concurred on nearly all of the majority argument, but took exception to the majority decision on severability. The majority ruled that Congress would not have passed PASPA shorn of its core elements found unconstitutional in this instance, striking down the whole measure instead.
Why would Congress enact both these provisions? The obvious answer is that Congress wanted to “keep sports gambling from spreading.” S. Rep. No. 102–248, pp. 4–6 (1991). It feared that widespread sports gambling would “threate[n] to change the nature of sporting events from wholesome entertainment for all ages to devices for gambling.” Id., at 4. And it may have preferred that state authorities enforce state law forbidding sports gambling than require federal authorities to bring civil suits to enforce federal law forbidding about the same thing. Alternatively, Congress might have seen subsection (2) as a backup, called into play if subsection (1)’s requirements, directed to the States, turned out to be unconstitutional— which, of course, is just what has happened. Neither of these objectives is unreasonable.

So read, the two subsections both forbid sports gambling but §3702(2) applies federal policy directly to individuals while the challenged part of §3702(1) forces the States to prohibit sports gambling schemes (thereby shifting the burden of enforcing federal regulatory policy from the Federal Government to state governments). Section 3702(2), addressed to individuals, standing alone seeks to achieve Congress’ objective of halting the spread of sports gambling schemes by “regulat[ing] interstate commerce directly.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 166 (1992). But the challenged part of subsection (1) seeks the same end indirectly by “regulat[ing] state governments’ regulation of interstate commerce.” Ibid. And it does so by addressing the States (not individuals) directly and telling state legislatures what laws they must (or cannot) enact. Under our precedent, the first provision (directly and unconditionally telling States what laws they must enact) is unconstitutional, but the second (directly telling individuals what they cannot do) is not.

Clarence Thomas also took issue with the court’s approach to severability, although he grudgingly agreed with its conclusion. Thomas worried that the court has made too much of a habit of transgressing on legislative jurisdiction:
Because PASPA is at least partially unconstitutional, our precedents instruct us to determine “which portions of the . . . statute we must sever and excise.” United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220, 258 (2005) (emphasis deleted). The Court must make this severability determination by asking a counterfactual question: “‘Would Congress still have passed’ the valid sections ‘had it known’ about the constitutional invalidity of the other portions of the statute?” Id., at 246 (quoting Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U. S. 727, 767 (1996) (plurality opinion)). I join the Court’s opinion because it gives the best answer it can to this question, and no party has asked us to apply a different test. But in a future case, we should take another look at our severability precedents.

Those precedents appear to be in tension with traditional limits on judicial authority. Early American courts did not have a severability doctrine. … As Chief Justice Marshall famously explained, “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” because “[t]hose who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). If a plaintiff relies on a statute but a defendant argues that the statute conflicts with the Constitution, then courts must resolve that dispute and, if they agree with the defendant, follow the higher law of the Constitution. See id., at 177–178; The Federalist No. 78, p. 467 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Thus, when early American courts determined that a statute was unconstitutional, they would simply decline to enforce it in the case before them. See Walsh 755–766. “[T]here was no ‘next step’ in which courts inquired into whether the legislature would have preferred no law at all to the constitutional remainder.” Id., at 777.

Despite this historical practice, the Court’s modern cases treat the severability doctrine as a “remedy” for constitutional violations and ask which provisions of the statute must be “excised.” See, e.g., Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng., 546 U. S. 320, 329 (2006); Booker, supra, at 245; Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U. S. 678, 686 (1987). This language cannot be taken literally. Invalidating a statute is not a “remedy,” like an injunction, a declaration, or damages. See Harrison, Severability, Remedies, and Constitutional Adjudication, 83 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 56, 82–88 (2014) (Harrison). Remedies “operate with respect to specific parties,” not “on legal rules in the abstract.”

At any rate, PASPA has been entirely struck down. New Jersey already passed a law allowing online sports gambling, and more states seem likely to follow suit. Will Congress take up another effort to pass another version of PASPA that will fit within the parameters laid out in Murphy v NCAA? It doesn’t seem likely in this more libertarian age, and it’s not at all clear whether the portions that Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor wanted left in place would have had much impact on the effort anyway. The lure of gambling schemes in the form of lotteries has long bewitched states, and sports gambling tax revenue would make for another way to capture income that’s currently being lost under the table now.

And yet ….
GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah) said on Monday that he will introduce new sports gambling legislation after the Supreme Court struck down a federal law that banned sports betting in almost every state.

“At stake here is the very integrity of sports. That’s why I plan to introduce legislation in the coming weeks to help protect honesty and principle in the athletic arena,” Hatch said in a statement. …

He added on Monday that “problems posed by sports betting are much the same as they were 25 years ago,” when PASPA was originally passed.

“But the rapid rise of the Internet means that sports betting across state lines is now just a click away. We cannot allow this practice to proliferate amid uneven enforcement and a patchwork race to the regulatory bottom,” Hatch said.

Worth noting: Hatch retires at the end of the year, and this is not likely to get a floor vote soon. Will Mitt Romney pick up this mantle? Don’t bet on it.


Poster Comment:

Quite a day for Sheldon Adelson. His biggest dream (moving the US embassy to Jerusalem) happening on the same day as his biggest nightmare (universal online gambling in the States)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)

The Court done good today. (Note: the only "gambling" I do is to buy one "quik-pic" lottery ticket whenever the Powerball or MegaMillions go over about $150 million.

God told me some years ago, out loud, that he would never give me the lottery because then I would not need to depend on him, so I know it's a wasted two dollars.

Still, it's like that government model: it's interesting to dream of how I WOULD do things if I were in charge, or if I had thus and so.

Tonight I think I'm going to try to run that model just like the US is today, with the present structure of debt, taxes, social issues, laws, etc. Then I'll see if I can turn around the ship and make it better.

The BASE thing, from my perspective, is to equalize the tax burdens, so that we are effectively taxing wealth the same across the board, to the extent we can. Since the vehicles by which we do that are property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, corporate taxes and capital gains taxes - as well as toll roads, potential internet taxes (which are sales taxes), cigarette, alcohol, gas and drug taxes - all sorts of taxes - to me the KEY is to be sure that the Income Tax marginal rates are the same as the Inheritance/Estate tax rates (an inheritance is INCOME to the recipient, who is a new person; it is not double taxation because the original recipient is dead), and that the the Capital gains taxes are, likewise, the same as the income and estate taxes (because capital gains are NEW wealth on top of existing wealth - in other words, income, which should be taxed).

Progressivity in the tax code is important at the lower levels (to avoid having to pay more in either government salaries, government subsidize for private employment, or welfare - there is a certain minimum income required to live a decent, modest life and taxing people below that level is self- defeating - you end up having to make up what you took in welfare, or forced higher minimum wages, etc.)

Property taxes on cars, houses and wealth stored as art, jewelry, gold or securities all needs to be set at the same (Low) level: about 2%.

Use fees are a special case. Car taxes should be based on mileage. Take down the toll booths and toll roads, and instead tax cars on a per-mile basis for the number of miles driven each year. This converts ALL roads into toll roads, without either the traffic jams or the collection stations and all of the loss of productivity from that: the odometer measures it out.

Tax all sales at some reasonable low amount, say 5%.

And then tax the living hell out of addictive substances: drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and junk food. 50% taxes, 75%. 100%. THOSE particular vices are the primary voluntary source of cancer and every other illness, which ends up costing billions. Discriminate against the vices, not by outlawing them, but by TAXING THEM.

That both reduces use (which reduces cancer, drunkenness, addiction and obesity) and raises a lot of revenue, in a way that's "sticky" because addictive substances have a relatively inelastic demand curve.

As the surplus is used to pay down the debt, taxes can be gradually lowered. The FIRST tax to lower is the corporation tax. Lower that, in particular, and GDP improves. This is supply-side economics.

Gambling can be a vice. It's free "easy money". It's income: so tax it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-14   18:13:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)

Gambling can be a vice. It's free "easy money". It's income: so tax it.

Vegas, casinos generally and lotteries are all already taxed. No reason to think it won't stay that way if they expand to online sports betting. I think the various government tax agencies will want their cut up front.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-05-14   18:40:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Tooconservative (#0)

The Constitution limits state sovereignty in several ways. It directly prohibits the States from exercising some attributes of sovereignty. Some grants of power to the Federal Government have been held to impose implicit restrictions on the States. …

And the Constitution indirectly restricts the States by granting certain legislative powers to Congress, while providing in the Supremacy Clause that federal law is the “supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding,” (Art. VI, cl. 2.)

This means that when federal and state law conflict, federal law prevails and state law is preempted.

This opinion above, is exactly what I have long argued; --- when the federal constitution and a state constitutions/law conflict, the Constitution prevails and state law is preempted.

States like Ca, NY, etc, --- pass 'laws' that infringe on the 2nd, yet the courts ignore these violations, and allow enforcements..

This must end...

tpaine  posted on  2018-05-16   15:50:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: tpaine (#3)

This opinion above, is exactly what I have long argued; --- when the federal constitution and a state constitutions/law conflict, the Constitution prevails and state law is preempted.

Well, the Court always leaves itself a backdoor if it finds consistency in legal philosophy inconvenient.

They aren't all that principled. Never were. This popular notion that the USSC are dispassionate and unbiased politically is just a farce.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-05-16   15:54:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Tooconservative (#4)

tpaine ----- This opinion above, is exactly what I have long argued; --- when the federal constitution and a state constitutions/law conflict, the Constitution prevails and state law is preempted.

They aren't all that principled. Never were. This popular notion that the USSC are dispassionate and unbiased politically is just a farce. ---- TC

I agree with the notion that they're unbiased politically is just a farce. -- But men do change, politically, as we've seen from some of the Justice's themselves, after they're appointed.

I'm not ready to believe that all of the liberals are so totally unprincipled that they would, for instance, support efforts to confiscate weapons, leading us to civil insurrections. -- Besides they're not that stupid, are they?

tpaine  posted on  2018-05-16   22:53:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: tpaine (#5)

I'm not ready to believe that all of the liberals are so totally unprincipled that they would, for instance, support efforts to confiscate weapons, leading us to civil insurrections. -- Besides they're not that stupid, are they?

Maybe not all of them. Maybe. Unless they thought they could get away with it.

Ten years ago, no one really imagined the Court imposing sodomy marriage on America yet here we are. So never say never when it comes to the Court.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-05-16   23:04:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com