Should the US federal government step in and regulate boxing?

[Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SweetHome_Bama

They have no authority granted by the constitution to do so. The constitution then states all powers not vested to the federal government via the constitution are the domain of the states and the people.

States have exercised their power to regulate their respective boxing commissions.

I think a more grounded solution would be for various states, California, Nevada, Florida, and etc. to make a united commssion, but you would have problems with people breaking it for big money fights.

Actually, you're dead wrong. I just wanted to see your answer. The federal government has authority under the commerce clause to regulate it.

[ripcity]

I think it's a good idea, but boxing is an international sport.

[SweetHome_Bama]

Originally Posted by Slothrop

Actually, you're dead wrong. I just wanted to see your answer. The federal government has authority under the commerce clause to regulate it.

No it does not have that authority under the commerce clause. You really don't know what you are talking about.

[Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SweetHome_Bama

No it does not have that authority under the commerce clause. You really don't know what you are talking about.

Actually, I do. You see, I went to law school and did quite well in Con Law. You're wrong. Sorry.

[bballchump11]

somebody needs to

[shaunster101]

Originally Posted by Slothrop

Why not?

Well, how can a one country regulate a global sport?

[SweetHome_Bama]

Originally Posted by Slothrop

Actually, I do. You see, I went to law school and did quite well in Con Law. You're wrong. Sorry.

Damn shame you went to law school and still don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Show me what recent decision supports your stance?

I think it would be hard for you to try to claim that boxing events in state are a form of interstate commerce.

[Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SweetHome_Bama

Damn shame you went to law school and still don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Show me what recent decision supports your stance?

I think it would be hard for you to try to claim that boxing events in state are a form of interstate commerce.

It's a damn shame that you are an ignoramus. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) to begin with.
In Lopez, the Court held that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to adopt legislation that 1) Regulates the channels of interstate commerce; 2) regulates the instrumentalities of interstate commerce and persons and things in interstate commerce; or 3) regulates activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

You going to make me dig out my Con Law 1 outline? lol. Seriously. You really don't know what you're talking about.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by SweetHome_Bama

They have no authority granted by the constitution to do so. The constitution then states all powers not vested to the federal government via the constitution are the domain of the states and the people.

States have exercised their power to regulate their respective boxing commissions.

I think a more grounded solution would be for various states, California, Nevada, Florida, and etc. to make a united commssion, but you would have problems with people breaking it for big money fights.

The federal government has regularly skirted that in the past using some generality. I forget exactly what it is now but is some weakly worded phrase and is responsible for a lot of federal regulation.

[kwilson71]

bad idea. Maybe the United Nations. But is it really that big of a deal lol

[Imperial1]

Yes

[SweetHome_Bama]

Originally Posted by Slothrop

It's a damn shame that you are an ignoramus. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) to begin with.
In Lopez, the Court held that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to adopt legislation that 1) Regulates the channels of interstate commerce; 2) regulates the instrumentalities of interstate commerce and persons and things in interstate commerce; or 3) regulates activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

You going to make me dig out my Con Law 1 outline? lol. Seriously. You really don't know what you're talking about.

Lopez case is about non-economic activity as well, to try to use that case to claim it gives the Fed power to regulate industry is ridiculous on its face and shows you are just pulling shit out of your ass.

On top of that Rehiquist said in the majority decision

To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.

So I really don't understand what you are trying to claim by bringing up Lopez.

---

Another thing you fail to bring up is how a boxing event has any economic effect on other states or how it is interstate commerce at all.

I believe the only thing you would have to try to make that argument is raich, but it seems to me that only passed because Scalia was heavily anti-drugs and openly contradicted his earlier stance.

Originally Posted by Hermit

The federal government has regularly skirted that in the past using some generality. I forget exactly what it is now but is some weakly worded phrase and is responsible for a lot of federal regulation.

They do, most notably the Raich v gonzales, but that would be the case for the court to decide. It is my opnion that they do not have the constitutional authority to do so.

[Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SweetHome_Bama

Lopez case is about non-economic activity as well, to try to use that case to claim it gives the Fed power to regulate industry is ridiculous on its face and shows you are just pulling shit out of your ass.

On top of that Rehiquist said in the majority decision
So I really don't understand what you are trying to claim by bringing up Lopez.

---

Another thing you fail to bring up is how a boxing event has any economic effect on other states or how it is interstate commerce at all.

I believe the only thing you would have to try to make that argument is raich, but it seems to me that only passed because Scalia was heavily anti-drugs and openly contradicted his earlier stance.



They do, most notably the Raich v gonzales, but that would be the case for the court to decide. It is my opnion that they do not have the constitutional authority to do so.

Much of what you just wrote makes little or no sense and is predicated on a great deal of misunderstanding.

Lopez delineates the three things that Congress can regulate under its Commerce Clause power. As stated. Boxing falls under #3: it is an activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

To clear up a bit of your misunderstanding: The facts of the Lopez case involved what the Court found to be activity that did not substantially impact interstate commerce, toting a gun in a school zone. which is why the law in question failed (the 1990 Gun-Free School Zone Act). It didn't fit under any of the three categories. Boxing clearly does.

[SweetHome_Bama]

Originally Posted by Slothrop

Much of what you just wrote makes little or no sense and is predicated on a great deal of misunderstanding.

Lopez delineates the three things that Congress can regulate under its Commerce Clause power. As stated. Boxing falls under #3: it is an activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

To clear up a bit of your misunderstanding: The facts of the Lopez case involved what the Court found to be activity that did not substantially impact interstate commerce, toting a gun in a school zone. which is why the law in question failed (the 1990 Gun-Free School Zone Act). It didn't fit under any of the three categories. Boxing clearly does.

I know the criteria laid out by Lopez, and I talked about that in the last section of my post when I questioned how you would classify a boxing match as an act of interstate commerce. On top of that I even told you the case that would support that, the most current, being raich v gonzalez.

Again though, the Lopez case is primarily about the government's power (fed) to regulate non economic activities, not economic activities such as boxing matches. It also greatly limits the commerce powers of the fed.

So it is clear to me you really have no clue about what you are talking about and on top of that if you actually did get a law degree and board certified you clearly don't practice constitutional law.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by Slothrop

Much of what you just wrote makes little or no sense and is predicated on a great deal of misunderstanding.

Lopez delineates the three things that Congress can regulate under its Commerce Clause power. As stated. Boxing falls under #3: it is an activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

To clear up a bit of your misunderstanding: The facts of the Lopez case involved what the Court found to be activity that did not substantially impact interstate commerce, toting a gun in a school zone. which is why the law in question failed (the 1990 Gun-Free School Zone Act). It didn't fit under any of the three categories. Boxing clearly does.

Well, right now we have a sad state of affairs. It is a race to the bottom to lure in the least scrupulous promoters.