Celtic boss Neil Lennon named August manager of the month

Spartan boss Neil Lennon was named Scottish Premiership director of the month for August.
The Hoops have been directed by lennon to four wins from four matches – including Sunday’s 2-0 Old Business win against Rangers regardless of the match taking place on September 1 – month as the preceding day, the game was originally scheduled to occur.
More to follow…

Read more here: http://happyonemedia.com/?p=1620

Opinion analysis: Justices strike down federal sports gambling law (Updated)

The 10th Amendment provides that, if the Constitution doesn’t either give a power to the national authorities or accept that power away in the states, that power is reserved for the states or the people themselves. The Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to bar the federal government from”commandeering” the countries to enforce national laws or laws. Today the justices ruled that a federal law that bars states from legalizing sports gambling violates the anti-commandeering doctrine. Their decision not only opens the door for states around the nation to allow sports betting, but it also can give considerably more power to countries generally, on issues which range from the decriminalization of marijuana to sanctuary towns.
The federal law at issue in the case is the skilled and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which dates back to 1992. The legislation, known as PASPA, bans most states out of (among other things) authorizing sports betting; it carved out an exception that would have permitted New Jersey to set up a sports-betting scheme in the country’s casinos, provided that the nation failed within a year. But it took New Jersey 20 years to behave: In 2012, the state legislature passed a law that legalized sports betting.
Justice Alito delivers opinion in Murphy v. NCAA (Art Lien)
The National Collegiate Athletic Association and the four major professional sports leagues went into court, asserting that the 2012 law violated PASPA. The lower federal courts agreed, prompting the New Jersey legislature to go back to the drawing board. In 2014, it passed a new law which gathered back existing bans on sports gambling, at least since they applied to New Jersey casinos and racetracks. The NCAA and the leagues returned to court, asserting that the new law also violated PASPA, along with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled against the state.
The Supreme Court agreed to look at the nation’s constitutional challenge to PASPA, and now the court reversed. In a decision by Justice Samuel Alito, the court began by describing the”anticommandeering doctrine may seem arcane, but it is just the expression of a fundamental structural conclusion incorporated in the Constitution” –“the choice to withhold from Congress the power to issue orders directly to the States.” And that, nearly all continued, is exactly the issue with the provision of PASPA the nation challenged, which bars states from authorizing sports betting: It”unequivocally dictates what a state legislature could and may not do.” “It is like” the majority suggested,”national officials were set up in state legislative chambers and have been armed with the ability to prevent legislators from voting on any busting proposals. A more direct affront to state sovereignty,” Alito reasoned,”is not easy to envision.”
The court rejected the argument, created by the leagues as well as the national authorities, that the PASPA provision barring states from sports gambling doesn’t”commandeer” the states, but instead simply supersedes any state legislation that conflict with the provision — a legal doctrine called pre-emption. Pre-emption, the majority explained,”is based on a national law which regulates the behaviour of private actors,” but here”there is just no way to understand the provision forbidding state authorization as anything other than a direct command to the States,” that”is exactly what the anticommandeering principle doesn’t allow.”
Having determined the PASPA provision barring states from sports gambling is unconstitutional, the bulk then turned to the question which followed from that decision: If the remainder of PASPA be broke down too, or will the law survive with no anti-authorization provision? In legal terms, the question is known as”severability,” and today half the seven justices — Alito together with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch — who consented that the PASPA anti-authorization supply was unconstitutional also agreed that the entire law should collapse. They concluded that, when the bar on countries authorizing or licensing sports betting were invalid, it could be”most unlikely” that Congress would have wanted to continue to stop the states from running sports lotteries, which were considered as”much more benign than some other kinds of betting.” In the same way, the majority posited, if Congress had understood the bar on condition authorization or performance of sports gambling will be struck down, it would not have desired the parallel ban on the performance of sports-betting strategies by private entities to continue. The PASPA provision barring the promotion of sports betting met the exact same fate; differently, the court explained,”federal law would forbid the advertising of an activity that is legal under both federal and state law, and that’s something that Congress has seldom done.”
The majority acknowledged that the question of whether to legalize sports gambling”is a controversial one” that”requires a significant policy decision.” But that choice, nearly all continued,”isn’t ours to make. Congress can regulate sports betting directly, but if it elects not to do so, every State is free to act by itself.”
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion in which he focused not on the substance of this court’s ruling but instead on a fairly subjective legal question: the viability of this court’s current severability doctrine. Thomas made clear that he joined the majority’s decision striking down most of PASPA since”it gives us the best response it can to this question, and no party has requested us to apply a different test.” However he proposed that the court ought to, at some point in the future, reconsider its severability philosophy, which he characterized as”suspicious” To begin with, he observed, the doctrine is contrary to the tools that judges normally use to translate laws because it takes a “`nebulous inquiry into hypothetical congressional purpose,”’ teaching judges to attempt and work out exactly what Congress would have wanted to do if part of a law violated the Constitution, when”it appears unlikely that the enacting Congress had any intent on this question.” Secondly, he continued, the philosophy”often requires courts to weigh in on statutory terms that no party has” a legal right to battle.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion. Ginsburg did not elaborate on her apparent decision (joined in full by Justice Sonia Sotomayor) that PASPA’s pub on the consent of sports betting from the states will not violate the Constitution. Rather, she argued (also with the support of Justice Stephen Breyer) that, even though PASPA’s anti-authorization provision is unconstitutional, the rest of the law should remain in force. “On no rational ground,” Ginsburg emphasized,”is it concluded that Congress would have chosen no statute at all if it could not prohibit States from authorizing or licensing such strategies.”
New Jersey has long hoped that allowing sports gambling could revive the nation’s struggling racetracks and casinos. In March of this year, ESPN estimated that if New Jersey were to win, the state might have legal sports gambling by the time football season kicks off in the autumn; nearly two dozen other states are also considering bills that would enable sports betting. The financial impact of letting sports gambling can’t be understated: Legal sports gambling in Las Vegas takes in over $5 billion each year, and many estimates place the value of illegal sports betting in the United States at around $100 billion.
Today’s ruling may also have a much broader reach, potentially affecting a range of topics that bear little resemblance to sports betting. By way of instance, supporters of so-called”sanctuary cities” — towns that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials to enforce immigration laws — have cited the 10th Amendment in recent challenges to the national government’s attempts to enforce conditions on grants for state and local law enforcement. Challenges to the federal government’s recent efforts to enforce federal marijuana laws in countries that have legalized the drug for recreational or medical use might also be dependent on the 10th Amendment.

Read more here: http://www.385914.com/archives/5073

Buy Essay Online Safe – Review of Top 5 Non-Legit Essay Writing Companies to Avoid

Writing help is, many a time, indispensable to students. So, whenever you’re in need of assistance, you should be able to distinguish between the legit and non-legit companies. That’s why today we will present some of the non-trusted companies in the domain, to help you make a documented decision!

1. EduBirdie.com

EduBirdie operates similarly to a customer-writer matching clearinghouse. As a customer, you place your assignment on their platform, and interested freelance writers place bids if they are acquainted with your topic.

Now moving on to the reasons why we won’t recommend you to pick this service. The testimonials on the website were entirely positive. As for off-site comments, they were rather mixed. Some customers complained about the unresponsiveness of the customer support department and the lacking quality.

If we were to assess the writing itself, we would have to say that the mistakes and errors in our paper indicate the work of an ESL writer. Also, when we asked for revisions, we got no response. Without a doubt, this company needs to upgrade its services before we would suggest students to use their services.

2. HireWriters.com

Since we didn’t find any writing samples on www.HireWriters.com, we were unable to anticipate the preparation level of the writers. Only if the writer posts samples on his/her profile can one assess the quality of the writing. An odd thing that makes us 继续阅读“”

International Sports Betting

We here at Safest Betting Sites believe that sports betting (and bookmaking) ought to be a legal action for many adults to enjoy if they choose to do so. You earned your money, you should be able to determine what to do with it. However, authorities and not all jurisdictions believe this. Therefore, we made a source of webpages where you can locate all about different laws and regulations in addition to various options as they pertain to global gambling sites.
Betting sports falls under this category. People who would like to wager their hard earned cash and understand the effects of losing their bet, along with what’s expected of the bookmakers should they win. This is the market in its purest form.
Sports betting is sometimes demonized as a kind of gambling that is morally incorrect compared to casino gambling, poker, or lotteries. This is nonsense. There is nothing wrong about betting on a sporting event.
Sports betting is a form of amusement. While nobody would bat an eye if a bunch of men spent several hundred dollars to purchase tickets to a soccer match, but if they got together for beers and pizza and also bet a couple of hundred bucks on the game — several societies and authorities would see these actions entirely differently.
Therefore, while we believe sports gambling should be completely legal around the world — that is nowhere near the truth. In reality, depending on what country or state you’re living in, the legal landscape for sports gambling can vary tremendously.

Read more here: http://happyonemedia.com/?p=1603

International Sports Betting

We here at Safest Betting Websites think that sports betting (and bookmaking) should be a legal action for many adults to enjoy if they choose to do so. You got your money, you should have the ability to determine what to do with it. However, not all authorities and governments believe this. Therefore, we made a source of pages where you can find about different laws and regulations in addition to various options as they pertain to global gambling sites.
Betting sports falls right under this particular category. People who would like to wager their hard earned money and comprehend the effects of losing their bet, along with what is due to the bookmakers should they win. This is the market in its purest form.
Sports gambling is sometimes demonized as a kind of gambling which is morally incorrect compared to casino gambling, poker, or lotteries. This is crap. There is nothing wrong about betting on a sporting occasion.
Primarily, sports gambling is a form of entertainment. While nobody would bat an eye if a lot of guys spent several hundred bucks to purchase tickets to a football game, but when they got together for beers and pizza and also bet a few hundred dollars on the sport — some societies and governments would see these actions entirely differently.
Therefore, while we think sports gambling should be completely legal around the world — that is far from the truth. In reality, based on what country or state you are living in, the legal landscape for sports gambling can vary tremendously.

Read more here: http://happyonemedia.com/?p=1603

International Sports Betting

We here in Safest Betting Websites believe that sports betting (and bookmaking) ought to be a legal action for all adults to appreciate if they choose to do so. You earned your money, you ought to be able to determine what to do with it. However, not all jurisdictions and authorities consider this. Therefore, we created a resource of pages where you can find about different laws and regulations as well as various choices as they pertain to global gambling websites.
Betting sports falls right under this particular category. People who wish to bet their hard earned cash and comprehend the consequences of losing their wager, along with what’s due to the bookmakers if they win. This is the market in its purest form.
Sports gambling can be demonized as a kind of gambling that is morally incorrect in comparison to casino gaming, poker, or lotteries. This is crap. There’s nothing immoral about betting on a sporting occasion.
Mostly, sports gambling is a kind of entertainment. While nobody would bat an eye if a bunch of men spent a few hundred dollars to buy tickets to a soccer game, but when they got together for beers and pizza and also bet a couple of hundred bucks on the sport — some societies and authorities would see these actions entirely differently.
So, while we believe sports betting should be entirely legal around the world — that is nowhere near the truth. In reality, based on what country or state you’re living in, the legal landscape for sports betting can vary wildly.

Read more here: http://happyonemedia.com/?p=1603