Posted on 05/14/2018 10:55:37 AM PDT by Repeal 16-17
The 10th Amendment provides that, if the Constitution does not either give a power to the federal government or take that power away from the states, that power is reserved for the states or the people themselves. The Supreme Court has long interpreted this provision to bar the federal government from “commandeering” the states to enforce federal laws or policies. Today the justices ruled that a federal law that bars states from legalizing sports betting violates the anti-commandeering doctrine. Their decision not only opens the door for states around the country to allow sports betting, but it also could give significantly more power to states generally, on issues ranging from the decriminalization of marijuana to sanctuary cities.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
Sanctuary cities....sorry...immigration is Federal.
“A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.”
At some point sooner than later, the nation has got to wake up and not allow Supreme Court decisions, constitutionally limited to the parties of the individual case, to be “national law”. The Constitution only allows Congress to make national law.
Good decision. The feds should stay out of the states’ areas and the states should stay away from interfering with the federal responsibilities such as immigration laws.
Interesting, because the USSC (different justices) have made all kinds of justifications under the commerce clause - things that were far less likely to interfere with commerce than gambling laws were upheld, but gambling laws are struck down. I am glad to see some sanity from the court, to keep the federal government from running amok. It is rare to see, though.
On the other hand, the court could still uphold these laws indirectly since federal prosecutions of gambling often cite violations of the wire act or money laundering provisions - not just gambling laws - to enforce their will.
Immigration law is federal, but the States can't be turned into its puppets to enforce it.
So I hope that if I move from Californicatia to Idaho, it will stop Cali-Crazies from trying make blood run in the streets of Coeur D’Alene.
Does this mean the return of Intrade/Tradesports?
Woo-hoo!
Wasn’t McCain pushing this?
7-2 decision?
There is no limit to how government can separate stupid people from their money.
6-3 for finding the unconstitutional part of the federal law was not severable from the rest of that law and so that federal law had to be voided in its entirety.
Justice Breyer was who split the difference.
Actually, they can. For as long as a state remains a member of the Republic it is bound to enforce federal law in the routine pursuance of its duties. No state agency may knowingly or deliberately refuse to acknowledge the authority of federal law. To wit, a citizen apprehended for a local crime must grant ICE access to determine citizenship and if found to be in the US illegally be taken into custody at the end of the state’s interest. Failure to do so is a violation of federal crimes against harboring fugitives.
The Supreme Court tells the Congress to mind its own business regarding sports betting. Always nice to see the Supreme Court enforcing limits on federal authority. It needs to happen much more often.
The country needs to eliminate the conflicts between Federal and State laws in order to return us to the rule of law. Federal pot laws have to go.
(PS ... never used pot, never will)
That just begs the question: may the federal government gives orders to the States or State officials? For the third time since 1992, the Supreme Court has said "no." That doesn't mean any State may interfere with the federal government enforcing federal law. It simply means if the feds want the States to enforce federal law, they must get the States to consent to doing so.
The 10th Amendment protects the States from being drafted by the federal government into being federal agents. The United States is a federal republic and so the States must be able to exist, subject to the Supremacy Clause, independently of the federal government.
The issue before us is both the refusal of some local officials to acknowledge the jurisdiction of federal law and in some cases the deliberate subversion of federal law by local officials. We are not here discussing the federal government co-opting local authority. Rather, the issue is the refusal of some local officials to recognize the legitimate authority of federal law where it applies, as in illegal border crossing.
Vegas isn’t going to like this one bit.
Yes, we are. That's what this thread and the Supreme Court's decision are about.
Rather, the issue is the refusal of some local officials to recognize the legitimate authority of federal law where it applies, as in illegal border crossing.
Agree regarding the Secessionist State of Kalifornia and regarding sanctuary cities. They actively interfere with ICE agents. That violates the Supremacy Clause as well as federal law.
The State and local governments can not interfere with federal enforcement of federal law, but the federal government can not force them to assist in such enforcement.
Seems like the right decision to me. Libs Wise Latina, Ginsberg and Breyer (in part) dissented.
This law they struck down looks blatantly unconstitutional to me, banning sports betting with the exception of Nevada? How did it last this long?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.