Hacker News
points by yieldcrv 1 day ago | 0 comments
Ninth circuit case, second circuit case, and third circuit case are all different outcomes because they are judging state laws in federal courts, different states within their respective circuit

I think Nevada’s and Arkansas was also mentioned - I guess Arkansas is in the fifth circuit - those are more comprehensive and broad than New Jersey’s in the third circuit

Ultimately I expect Kalshi will have the swaps treatment reaffirmed, and the supremacy clause will override most of the state laws

But for Nevada and Arkansas residents it will be unworkable, and they will just block some forms of bets for residents in those states

[–] kube-system 1 day ago
Unless Congress now acts
[–] yieldcrv 1 day ago
perhaps, enough people are annoyed at the distortion to sports advertising and their friend’s behaviors that they could get some republican senators support for the 60 vote threshold

otherwise Democrats are still without power to unilaterally pass laws

have there been any proposals to deal with this? bills that didnt make it out of committee?

something as simple as adding some contracts to the ban in the onion futures act I think is a mistake

[–] kube-system 1 day ago
Some of the states that have issues with Kalshi are red, e.g Utah. There’s a serious states rights issue here as well.
[–] 15155 1 day ago
> There’s a serious states rights issue here as well.

Of all of the ridiculous things that qualify as interstate commerce: prediction, futures, and derivatives markets are squarely within the definition.

[–] JumpCrisscross 1 day ago
I don’t think anyone is seriously contesting the Congress’s power to regulate prediction markets. The question is whether it has.

The CFTC relied on rules about exempted commodities to grant itself the power to license the likes of Kalshi. The question is whether that’s a major question.

[–] kube-system 1 day ago
Yeah, and gambling has a clear precedent for state (and tribal) right to regulate.

The question at hand here isn’t either of our points. The question is whether or not prediction markets are gambling with lipstick on.

[–] yieldcrv 1 day ago
when there is a conflict of laws, federal law reigns supreme, thats the Supremacy Clause

when federal law is completely absent, states have the right to behave however they want, thats the 10th amendment

federal law is not absent, state laws are curbed, in its simplest interpretation

[–] 15155 1 day ago
Why do the same five people end up at the World Series of Poker final table every year?
[–] kube-system 1 day ago
Probably the reason the president's son is on the board of Kalshi, pure coincidence.
[–] krapp 1 day ago
The only things that should qualify as interstate commerce are physical goods being transported between states, over land or water.

If we're stuck with endemic gun violence because of an 18th century definition of "well regulated militia" then there's no way a purely online marketplace counts as interstate commerce. How do you fit that on a horse, exactly?

[–] 15155 1 day ago
> interstate commerce are physical goods being transported between states, over land or water

Okay, so digital marketplaces aren't interstate commerce? Try again. Insurance markets? In what reality is "commerce" defined as exclusively-physical goods?

> well regulated militia

Anyone that spouts this immediately signals their lack of English knowledge, law insight, etc. Even RBG didn't attempt this argument because it's literally, obviously invalid.

[–] krapp 1 day ago
> In what reality is "commerce" defined as exclusively-physical goods?

The reality of pre-industrial America circa the writing of the Constitution, which we have decided defines the limit of interpreting the language in that document.

If we're going to do that with guns we should be consistent and do that with everything. Non-physical goods didn't exist back then, the founders didn't know what an internet was, therefore online "commerce" doesn't exist as far as the constitution is concerned.

>Anyone that spouts this immediately signals their lack of English knowledge, law insight, etc. Even RBG didn't attempt this argument because it's literally incorrect.

And yet, DC vs. Heller.

[–] yieldcrv 1 day ago
each article and amendment are evaluated independently, and at different times by different people. the different people only take up a handful of evaluations every year

so thats easy to square.

good news, the current Supreme Court has expressed interest in re-evaluating the New Deal era interpretations of the interstate commerce clause, in a way that could completely obliterate the Federal state and all of its agencies of the last 100 years

“omg I love SCOTUS now?”