Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has recently voiced his opinion of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), admitting he is against this controversial piece of legislation.
The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, also known as the Bradley Act, was adopted back in 1992, as a mean of defining the legal status of sports betting in the United States. With its coming into effect, sports betting was effectively banned in the majority of the states.
Unconstitutional Law
Many oppose PASPA, especially since for many states this act represents an obstacle toward increasing tax revenues through legalization and regulation of gambling, as well as its taxation.
The opponents also claim the law is unconstitutional since it goes against the Tenth Amendment, which reserves to the states all rights not explicitly granted to the federal government, including the regulation of gambling.
Paxton agrees with these claims. He openly said in a statement published by the American Sports Betting Coalition (ASBC) that PASPA was unconstitutional and trampled on state sovereignty, adding the states had the right to decide whether they wanted regulated sports betting or not.
His position on the whole issue is somewhat surprising since Paxton has opposed the current President of the United States, which is in favor of PASPA.
New Jersey Prepares For December
The scheduled New Jersey's hearing in the case against PASPA will take place on December 4. The governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie says there are many who object New Jersey's legal efforts to repeal the 25-year-old federal prohibition on legalized sports betting in all but four states.
Christie wants the same conditions like the ones Nevada has enjoyed for decades.
Christie said the hypocrisy was overwhelming. According to him, many believe New Jersey shouldn't be allowed to legalize sports betting because of the several professional teams located in the state, claiming it could threaten the integrity of the game.
He said gambling wasn't threatening the integrity of the game in Las Vegas. According to him, those who objected New Jersey's initiative sought any reason whatsoever and didn't care if those reasons were unsubstantiated.
