Sidebar

[alhattab]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

The commerce clause arguments against this sort of regulations were always losers under current precedent.

Let's consider the BEST case for a commerce clause horse racing regulation argument. Let's say a state bans interstate simulcasting of its races and betting on the Internet. The only way you can bet a race at Alaska Downs is if you are at the track or in a simulcast facility in Alaska. There's no interstate wagering. Heck, it would be pretty ware to even see folks traveling from other states to Alaska to bet the races. That's as non-interstate as you could probably get.

And yet, even THAT would be within Congress' power to regulate under Wickard v. Filburn, Raich v. Ashcroft, and other commerce clause precedents. Raich held that growing a marijuana plant on your windowsill with your own seeds and smoking joints from it could be regulated by Congress. Why? Because you look at the enterprise as a whole- marijuana production- and not the single act. And marijuana production is interstate.

Well, horse racing is interstate in the same way. There's an interstate market for stallions, horses often ship from state to state, trainers and jockeys move their business from state to state, out of state owners own horses, etc. That's clearly enough under Wickard and Raich.

And of course, that's an idealized state. In the real world, we have congressionally authorized interstate and international wagering. Obviously, Congress has the power to regulate the integrity of the interstate betting markets, even if that means applying regulations to a local racetrack to do it. There's no commerce clause violation here.

Interesting to me- as a layperson- why PASPA wouldn’t survive under similar logic.