The can receive more attention, make more profit, and

The issue of sports betting is an issue that has been highly debated over the past years. The problem is that states desire the legalization of sports betting because it would significantly help them financially. The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear New Jersey’s opinion on going against the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act which is a federal law that prohibits sports betting in most states. Currently the legalization of sports betting seems to be positive because of the changing public attitudes towards gambling recently. States desire for the legalization of sports betting because casinos can make huge profit and more attention will be brought to states that have these centers of gambling. An example is Atlantic City who can take advantage of sports betting. They can receive more attention, make more profit, and bring more people to tour their state. Businesses are already talking about preparing for the legalization of sports betting to make a profit as soon as the law is overturned. Another example is bringing more people to states on weekends such as the Super Bowl. Currently, the only states in which sports gambling is legal are Nevada, Delaware, Montana, and Oregon. Out of these states, Nevada is the only state that allows single-game wagering. Using New Jersey, if this ban is struck down, they can generate more than $173 million in tax revenue and create more than 3,633 jobs. On the other side of supporters, there are opposers of uplifting this ban. Opposers say that state-sponsored gambling will make people vulnerable and create ill feelings. They argue that it would allow casino companies to target those who are financially unstable and make them addicted to gambling. A question that is being asked is if this federal law violates the 10th Amendment’s aspect of giving all powers not given to the federal government to the states. This Amendment has the ability to protect the states from the federal government taking too much power. New Jersey had once tried to repeal state regulations on gambling to make it a private matter. The NCAA and the big professional sports organizations won in court as they sued New Jersey again. New Jersey in this case feels as if the Constitution never stated that the federal government could prohibit the states from repealing their own laws. The citizens in New Jersey are basically obeying a law that they do not desire.Paragraph analyzing why the issue involves federalism and your stance on whether or not the issue should be controlled by federal or state governmentI DO NOT WANT OPINION ON ISSUE ITSELF The issue of legalizing sports betting involves federalism because the federal government is completely overpowering the state governments in deciding whether or not it should be legalized. The subject of this anti-gambling law is ultimately the states. Since only the federal government has the choice of legalizing this or not throughout the states, the federal government’s strength is shown similar to the idea of federalism. Federalism was the belief that the federal government should be much stronger than the state governments. This issue shows how the federal government is commandeering these states and forcing them to have sports gambling illegal. The states have no choice but to follow this order while feeling as if the federal government is violating the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment limits the ability of the federal government to commandeer the states but the states in this case are feeling as if the federal government is too overpowering. The state governments clearly have weaker power than the federal government and are constantly trying to take control of legalizing sports betting in their states. This issue should be controlled by the state government because the state government desires for the legalization sports betting rather than the illegalization that the federal government is imposing. If the state government controls this issue, each individual state can make the choice of legalizing it or making it illegal. This would allow certain states to weigh the benefits and disadvantages of sports gambling and make their own choice. States with many casinos will probably choose to legalize sports betting while those who do not have many may keep it illegal to prevent the financially unstable to lose their money. The fact that these states can have the choice will mean that this issue is not being controlled by the federal government. This would mean that the federal government is giving the states the right that they deserved in the 10th Amendment and will not be able to completely overpower the states in rulings on sports gambling. The federal government will not be able to nullify the laws of the states because the Constitution does not allow for it.Paragraph connecting issue to early national period using evidence from class This issue relates to the early national period because in both time periods, the power of the federal government versus the state governments were always debated. Good examples from the early national period that exhibits the federal government’s strength in an issue like this are court cases such as Fletcher v. Peck, Cohens v. Virginia, and Gibbons v. Ogden. In all of these Marshall court cases, the final decisions represented the federal government’s strength over the state governments. Fletcher v. Peck’s decision declared that the state legislature of Georgia can not make a previous contract void. The federal government is declaring the state law unconstitutional which exhibits the national authority over the states. Cohens v. Virginia was a case in which the Supreme Court declared that the conviction of the Cohens was correct while showing how the national government has the power to oversee state court cases. Although the states can make their own decisions, ultimately the federal government has more power as it can look over these state cases. Gibbons v. Ogden was a situation in which the boating license issued by the federal government had more authority than a state license. The federal government clearly has the upper hand in all of these cases. Similarly, sports gambling is completely in the hands of the federal government. The opinions of the state governments in legalizing sports betting throughout the country is being ignored as the federal government’s decision is supreme. The federal government in this issue is shown to have more authority than the states and the debate of the powers of the federal government versus state governments are apparent. The state desires for more power but the federal government is ultimately supreme in this issue of whether or not sports betting should be legalized or not.

x

Hi!
I'm Marcella!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out