Two Lessons of Anticommandeering: The Preemptive Significance of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act
| dc.contributor.author | Carey, W. Dane | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2016-06-16T21:26:31Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2016-06-16T21:26:31Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
| dc.description.abstract | (11 Willamette Sports L.J., no. 1, 2013, at 1). This article considers whether states can legalize sports betting without violating the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA). The article examines the history and constitutionality of PASPA; specifically, the two main constitutional arguments for invalidating PASPA— the Tenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause. The article then discusses how the anti-commandeering principle constrains federal regulatory power, specifically with respect to PASPA and the New Jersey Sports Gambling Law. The article discusses how federalism principles limit the effect of Congress’s sports gambling ban—chiefly, that the federal government may not compel states to actively support or participate in enforcing federal law. The article then considers the anti-commandeering principle’s limits on enforcement in the event of “uncooperative federalism.” | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10177/5624 | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.title | Two Lessons of Anticommandeering: The Preemptive Significance of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |