Supreme Court legalizes sports gambling

[PhatMack19]

Individual states can still make it illegal, but it won’t be against Federal law any longer.

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[LumRaiderFan]

Not a gambler but anytime something is taken from the feds and given back to the states, it's a good thing.

[TxHoops]

The precedent set forth by the SCOTUS today opens the door for decriminalization of marijuana by the feds (and other drugs, perhaps) as well as sanctuaries in the states. The same rationale would apply to both and this case will assuredly be cited in any such cases the high court might hear in the future.

[LumRaiderFan]

7 hours ago, TxHoops said:

The precedent set forth by the SCOTUS today opens the door for decriminalization of marijuana by the feds (and other drugs, perhaps) as well as sanctuaries in the states. The same rationale would apply to both and this case will assuredly be cited in any such cases the high court might hear in the future.

So would you agree that states should be allowed to decide how they choose to handle abortion?

 

[TxHoops]

17 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

So would you agree that states should be allowed to decide how they choose to handle abortion?

 

I think the same argument can be made there as well, yes. 

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

I think the same argument can be made there as well, yes. 

I agree...one more...were you saying there is an argument to be made for the states to have the right to have sanctuary cities, or did I misread?

[stevenash]

You didn't misread.

[Ty Cobb]

I may be way off here but are we saying that each state will become a "republic" in that it can make it's own laws?  Gambling, abortion, sanctuary cities and so forth.

[LumRaiderFan]

46 minutes ago, Ty Cobb said:

I may be way off here but are we saying that each state will become a "republic" in that it can make it's own laws?  Gambling, abortion, sanctuary cities and so forth.

For the most part I think they should, other that the few enumerated powers given to the fed gov in the Constitution, most falls back to the states.

Of course, we're a long ways from that...the fed gov just keeps getting more and more bloated.

As far as sanctuary cities, states have no right to have these...border security and immigration are a federal responsibility.

Gambling, drugs, abortion...most anything else, let the states decide.

 

[Hagar]

On 5/15/2018 at 0:35 AM, TxHoops said:

The precedent set forth by the SCOTUS today opens the door for decriminalization of marijuana by the feds (and other drugs, perhaps) as well as sanctuaries in the states. The same rationale would apply to both and this case will assuredly be cited in any such cases the high court might hear in the future.

Please correct me if I’m wrong Hoops, but as I understand it, this is possibly a big step in returning rights back to the States, which is how the Founding Fathers had intended.  That would make it a big win for most, especially conservatives, who’ve been preaching this since I was born.

 

And on a side note, if Texas approves it (which they won’t), I can clean up on the PNG vs Nederland game next year  

[TxHoops]

On 5/15/2018 at 10:10 AM, LumRaiderFan said:

I agree...one more...were you saying there is an argument to be made for the states to have the right to have sanctuary cities, or did I misread?

Yes, this case will most certainly be used as precedent in such cases.  

19 hours ago, REBgp said:

Please correct me if I’m wrong Hoops, but as I understand it, this is possibly a big step in returning rights back to the States, which is how the Founding Fathers had intended.  That would make it a big win for most, especially conservatives, who’ve been preaching this since I was born.

 

And on a side note, if Texas approves it (which they won’t), I can clean up on the PNG vs Nederland game next year  

Absolutely it is.  Big money gaming has paved the way to a lot of states’ autonomy arguments.  

[TxHoops]

On 5/15/2018 at 2:45 PM, LumRaiderFan said:

For the most part I think they should, other that the few enumerated powers given to the fed gov in the Constitution, most falls back to the states.

Of course, we're a long ways from that...the fed gov just keeps getting more and more bloated.

As far as sanctuary cities, states have no right to have these...border security and immigration are a federal responsibility.

Gambling, drugs, abortion...most anything else, let the states decide.

 

Apparently I wasn’t alone in my reading of the opinion.  To wit:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[LumRaiderFan]

9 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Apparently I wasn’t alone in my reading of the opinion.  To wit:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

 

Border security is one of the enumerated powers given to the fed gov...gambling regulation is not.

Apple and oranges...to reasonable folks, anyway.

A state such as California has no right to allow anyone in illegally (key word) and allow them sanctuary.

Of course, Napolitano may have a point, no telling where liberal activist judges will take this.

 

[Hagar]

14 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Apparently I wasn’t alone in my reading of the opinion.  To wit:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I noticed you posted a FOX News link.  Your decision to do so was prudent based on the prevalent audience on this Forum.  On the downside, you lose credence with any fellow liberals lol.  In political discussions today, there’s just to many mines not to step on one, whether it has a R or a D on it.  

[TxHoops]

15 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

 

Border security is one of the enumerated powers given to the fed gov...gambling regulation is not.

Apple and oranges...to reasonable folks, anyway.

A state such as California has no right to allow anyone in illegally (key word) and allow them sanctuary.

Of course, Napolitano may have a point, no telling where liberal activist judges will take this.

 

The opinion set forth in Murphy screams an anti-commandeering argument that seems tailor-made for a sanctuary argument for those who are accustomed to analyzing legal precedent.  I was interested in the opinion for other reasons but this was one of the first thoughts I had.  And it’s more than a little arguable about the framers intent with 4-4.  In fact, it’s one of the more hotly debated areas among constitutional scholars.  

Having said all of that, we’re not far off on our views of the Feds role in this area. 

[LumRaiderFan]

7 hours ago, TxHoops said:

The opinion set forth in Murphy screams an anti-commandeering argument that seems tailor-made for a sanctuary argument for those who are accustomed to analyzing legal precedent.  I was interested in the opinion for other reasons but this was one of the first thoughts I had.  And it’s more than a little arguable about the framers intent with 4-4.  In fact, it’s one of the more hotly debated areas among constitutional scholars.  

Having said all of that, we’re not far off on our views of the Feds role in this area. 

Which proves Constitutional "Scholar's" opinions are often no more accurate that reasonably intelligent laymen.

Doesn't make sense to me that an anti-commandeering argument can be made that is in direct contrast to the written Constitution, as I interpret it, anyway.

Seems that would open the door for states to make the Constitution meaningless...which we are slowly getting to, anyway.

I'm curious what are your thoughts on the framers intent on 4-4.