Congress in Horse Racing

[Quiet Chris]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You are forgetting that most important thing. We dont have the authority to create a single governing body. And honestly I dont think the Federal govt does either. It really comes down to states rights and I dont see any state surrendering control to a central authority or to the federal govt for that matter. We can jump up and down and form any organization we want but the probability of the racing commissions giving up that power (which will surely have to be done by changing laws in many states, which is never an easy thing) is remote. The racing industry has no control over its own regulation.

As long as people can wager online or over the telephone from different states, it is not a states rights issue. It is a federal government issue. The federal government could put any rules in place it wants as long as these states invite betting from individuals that do not live in their state.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Quiet Chris

As long as people can wager online or over the telephone from different states, it is not a states rights issue. It is a federal government issue. The federal government could put any rules in place it wants as long as these states invite betting from individuals that do not live in their state.

That is not really true. In fact there are many legal opinions that interstate simulcasting is illegal under the HR act of 1978.

[DogsUp]

Anything at the Federal level will trump anything at the State level. If Congress wants to have a single body running racing, then I think they will be in over their head and move on. Now, I am all for states right. I guess you can call me a John C Calhoun person (minus th belief in slavery). I do not know if a single body would be better or not. All I know is that the Federal Gov't can tell the states to do whatever they want.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by DogsUp

Anything at the Federal level will trump anything at the State level. If Congress wants to have a single body running racing, then I think they will be in over their head and move on. Now, I am all for states right. I guess you can call me a John C Calhoun person (minus th belief in slavery). I do not know if a single body would be better or not. All I know is that the Federal Gov't can tell the states to do whatever they want.

Depends upon the interpretation of the commerce clause of the constitution. Does horseracing really fall under interstate commerece? You could argue that simulcasting does but the regulation of the sport in regards to the actual sport does not seem to be be interstate commerce.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Depends upon the interpretation of the commerce clause of the constitution. Does horseracing really fall under interstate commerece? You could argue that simulcasting does but the regulation of the sport in regards to the actual sport does not seem to be be interstate commerce.

While the current Supreme Court has been trying to rein in, pardon the pun, Congress's ability to legislate in certain areas (the case where the Court invalidated, on Commerce Clause grounds, the Congressional act prohibiting guns within so many feet of a school comes to mind immediately), I don't think there is any question that racing, in its modern form, constitutes interstate commerce.

[ShadowRoll]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Depends upon the interpretation of the commerce clause of the constitution. Does horseracing really fall under interstate commerece? You could argue that simulcasting does but the regulation of the sport in regards to the actual sport does not seem to be be interstate commerce.

Does the term "shipper" ring a bell?