Once as forcing the states to carry out

Once again, this statement displays the unconstitutionality of PASPA. Additionally, in the future the Federal Government may begin forcing state governments to execute the policies set by the Federal Government instead of enforcing the policies themselves. States may have to use their resources and money to fund and implement these policies. New Jersey would be required to use its own police powers and spend its own tax dollars to prosecute the violators of prohibitions that would not exist had its people been able to exercise their right to self-governance as is assured to them by the Tenth Amendment. This is also problematic as the state officials may receive retaliation from the public rather than the federal officials being accountable for their policies. The Supreme Court stated in the opinion of New York v. United States as it should be the “federal officials that suffer the consequences if the decision turns out to be detrimental or unpopular.” PASPA is commandeering by the Federal Government to the state as if forces the New Jersey to act against the interests of itself, and therefore, it is unconstitutional by the Tenth Amendment. Supplementary to violating the anti-commandeering doctrine, PASPA raises federalism concerns because of its prohibition on allowing states to repeal their own laws. The United States Constitution directly states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This amendment divides the state and federal governments in order to protect individuals, not to protect the states. However, that is what PASPA essentially does, as it regulates states by prohibiting them from repealing the ban on sports wagering. The Tenth Amendment allows for the people of  the states to decide whether to enact or repeal legislation within the state’s reserved powers given by the Tenth Amendment. Thus, it is not the duty of the state government to enforce and the policies of the Federal Government. This is reiterated in Printz v. United States, when the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government cannot compel the states to impose and govern a federal regulatory program, even temporarily. The Supreme Court rules similarly in New York v. United States, as forcing the states to carry out a federal regulation is, in this particular case, coercion. Moreover, if Congress upholds the Third Circuit’s decision, Congress will have a much greater ability to interfere with other state laws and statutes, such as hunting and fishing licenses, lotteries and speed limits. It is the state of New Jersey and the elected representatives decision to determine what legislation should be enacted in their state. The Federal Government is explicitly impeding on the rights given to the states by the Tenth Amendment through PASPA.