SCOTUS legalizes state sports gambling

[devil21]

I haven't read the ruling yet but it was long anticipated that SCOTUS would allow sports gambling. If the ruling is based on 10th Amendment grounds, which it likely is, that opens the door to a lot of state's rights being restored. Drugs/cannabis, gun laws, possibly abortion and other social issues.

Since the Fed's ability to print unlimited money for export under the petrodollar standard is ending, states will have to find new revenue sources in the near future, including sports gambling.

CNBC article about sports gambling ruling in particular:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/14/us-s...s-betting.html

[TheCount]

Haven't read the opinion yet; seems like a mixed bag:

"The legalization of sports gambling requires an important policy choice, but the choice is not ours to make. Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each state is free to act on its own," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

[dannno]

Haven't read the opinion yet; seems like a mixed bag:

What is the mixed part?

[devil21]

Haven't read the opinion yet; seems like a mixed bag:

The legal foundation is where it all starts. No different than when FDR stacked SCOTUS way back then to push through the framework for the New Deal and eventual UCCifying of commerce in America (Erie Railroad v. Thompkins). Congress can choose to act on something. Means they can also choose not to. This is why we see more and more talk about, for example, reclassifying/declassification of cannabis, Boehner and Schumer publicly supporting medical cannabis, etc. It's one example but is a sign of things to come. States will need things like more open cannabis markets for tax revenue and job creation.

Of course, Trumptards will hail Trump as the restorer of state's rights but those with deeper understanding know he's just the puppet that takes credit for things he had precisely nothing to do with. He's just the PR guy.

Don't underestimate the impact of this ruling going forward.

[dannno]

The legal foundation is where it all starts. No different than when FDR stacked SCOTUS way back then to push through the framework for the New Deal and eventual UCCifying of commerce in America. Congress can choose to act on something. Means they can also choose not to. This is why we see more and more talk about, for example, reclassifying/declassification of cannabis, Boehner and Schumer publicly supporting medical cannabis, etc. It's one example but is a sign of things to come. States will need things like more open cannabis markets for tax revenue and job creation.

Of course, Trumptards will hail Trump as the restorer of state's rights but those with deeper understanding know he's just the puppet that takes credit for things he had precisely nothing to do with. He's just the PR guy.

Don't underestimate the impact of this ruling going forward.

Ahh yes, I can't wait for your explanation about why the deep state wants to start bringing our troops home, and it has nothing to do with Trump, he is just a PR guy

[devil21]

Ahh yes, I can't wait for your explanation about why the deep state wants to start bringing our troops home, and it has nothing to do with Trump, he is just a PR guy

Dannno got triggered lol.

Perhaps you missed the part in the thread where I already told you. The Fed's ability to print money for export around the world is ending. No, all of the troops will not be coming home, since Americans are effectively the NWO military up until all countries are under "western" banker control (last few outliers are underway in Syria, Iran, NK), but some will be coming home. Can't print up money at will for export all over the world, can't run an empire anymore. The US "empire" has been little more than the military arm of the bankers, not really an empire in the classic sense of the term.

Feel free to ask any questions you may have.

[TheCount]

What is the mixed part?

This:

Congress can regulate sports gambling directly

[Anti Globalist]

Pete Rose going to get pardoned.

[not.your.average.joe]

The PASPA Bill of 1992 in question is unconstitutional.

` 3702. Unlawful sports gambling
`It shall be unlawful for--
`(1) a governmental entity to sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license,
or authorize by law or compact, or
`(2) a person to sponsor, operate, advertise, or promote, pursuant to the
law or compact of a governmental entity,
a lottery, sweepstakes, or other betting, gambling, or wagering scheme
based, directly or indirectly (through the use of geographical references or
otherwise), on one or more competitive games in which amateur or professional
athletes participate, or are intended to participate, or on one or more
performances of such athletes in such games.

Congress had no authority to my understanding to pass that bill (Article 1 Section 8 & Amendment 10). The bill technically didn't make sports gambling illegal, instead it terminated the initiation of sports gambling in 1993 and said that any violations of the bill could have a civil action suit filed against them to stop the violation. Fancy way of saying sports gambling started after 1993 is illegal.
Interesting to note, PASPA violations rest on the axiom that any activity can be declared illegal (or whatever jargon they use to pretend it's not illegal), simply because a law is made declaring it so. Sports gambling doesn't violate anyone's liberties that I'm aware of, the government has no power to legislate it. (Compare to other illegal things like possession of marijuana, collecting rainwater, and selling things or partaking in recreational activities without a permit)
The case yesterday was over New Jersey's ability to repeal its laws banning sports gambling (in the same way some states allow marijuana possession), or essentially, the power of a state to treat a federal law as unconstitutional (nullification, anyone?).
The basis for the SC decision is that the PASPA bill 'commandeers' the states' power to repeal laws banning gambling. The decision recognizes the states' sovereignty. Since the activity is not prohibited in Article 1 Section 10, the activity is perfectly fine.

the provision was unconstitutional because “the Constitution does not empower Congress to subject state governments to this type of instruction.”

Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each State is free to act on its own

Pretty sure Congress doesn't have the power to regulate sports gambling directly (where in Article 1 Section 8?).

From what I understand of the Supreme Court ruling Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., the PASPA bill is defunct. Good riddance to bad rubbish.