States gamble and win big
The Supreme Court has made a big bet, and all 50 states won the jackpot.
In a 6-3 vote, the justices declared that Congress couldn’t force states to ban sports gambling. Now any state can join free-wheeling Nevada, which was grandfathered in.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said, “Congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each state is free to act on its own.”
The court determined that the 25year-old Professional and Amateur
Sports Protection Act was unconstitutional.
Congress sold the law as protecting the integrity of sports, but politicians never imagined the growth of internet gaming options, many of which operate offshore.
Even if you aren’t a gambler (my biggest win was $14 on video poker at Bellagio) this decision will have massive repercussions.
When the founders set up this whole American experiment, they famously created three branches of government to check and balance one another:
❚ Congress passes laws and the president signs them ... or not.
❚ The president nominates Cabinet officers and the Senate confirms them ... or not.
❚ Meanwhile, the Supreme Court makes sure no one is breaking the rules.
But the founders also set up another check and balance: Washington versus the states. The District of Columbia was supposed to take care of only those issues that are truly national: Foreign policy, national defense, protecting civil rights and the like.
The states were to handle everything else. Vermont can set up its own public school system and business regulations, while Kentucky can do the same. Arizona can create a lottery while Utah next door says, “no thanks.”
This system of federalism appreciates that top-down solutions from the Beltway might not work in places as different as Delaware and Hawaii.
This federal-state check and balance has long been ignored as Washington preferred to vacuum up all the power it could.
Using flimsy excuses of interstate commerce in situations that were neither “interstate” nor “commerce,” Congress yanked the reins from the hands of local governments.
And local voters. Libertarians and conservatives spent eight lonely years during the Obama era warning liberals that federalism was in their best interest. “Sure, your guy is running the show now,” we said, “but someday we’ll have a president you don’t like.”
Donald Trump is proving that with a vengeance.
To their credit, some Democrats have realized we were right all along.
“It’s time we allow states, once and for all, to have the power to decide what works best for them,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said a few weeks ago. “I have long believed that states should function as their own laboratories of democracy.”
Schumer wants the feds to lay off of states that have decriminalized marijuana, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (DMass.) agrees.
“The federal government needs to get out of the business of outlawing marijuana,” she said. “States should make their own decisions about enforcing marijuana laws.”
Welcome to the party, guys.
I’m as big a fan of weed as I am of gambling, which is to say not at all. But if Coloradans want to see smoke billowing from Fort Collins to Colorado Springs, it’s none of my business. It’s none of Congress’ business either.
Let Oregon raise its taxes 200 percent while Texas has no income tax. Let Louisiana experiment with school choice while Alabama sticks with a more traditional school model. And if a state is too conservative or too progressive, citizens can vote with their feet.
While I’m happy that Democrats are taking up the 50 banners of federalism, I remain skeptical of their commitment. Will Schumer and Warren defend the rights of states if a progressive takes the White House in 2020?
Don’t bet on it.