For Some Reason, Congress Will Examine Williams Wall Case

Why is the House Energy and Commerce Committee holding a hearing next month on the Williams Wall case? Beats the heck out of me.

Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., is concerned that the legal issues raised in the case "could result in weaker performance-enhancing drugs policies for professional sports," the committee said in a statement issued to The Associated Press Thursday.

4 months ago Anthony21 28 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Relax

Not really news. Another statement by a Congressman 10 days ago, reacting to the suspension of the Rams LB, hinted at the same thing. (We discussed this alot awhile back on this Blog. I expected the discussion to heat up this week precisely because the Vikes are playing the Rams. That hasn’t happened yet, but it might now.)

Federal Legislation is the ONLY way to get what everyone agrees should be right result going forward here — uniform drug testing policies for all players in the league, regardless of what state their team is located in. The Supreme Court ha made it clear that CBA’s do not exempt union employees and their employers from state laws regulating the workplace in a given state, so the fact that the states are pre-empted from interfering with CBA issues doesn’t get us where we need to get to — uniform drug testing policy for all players on all teams.

The only way to get there is to enact federal legislation re drug testing for professional sports players — that federal law WOULD pre-empt contrary state laws on the subject.

The first step in passing such legislation is to conduct hearings on the need for such legislation. That is what Waxman is planning to do.

Legally, Congress is prohibited from passing legislation that would retroactively deprive the Williams’ of their rights under state law, so COngress can’t do anything to permimt the NF: to suspend the Williams’ for taking StarCaps last year. Even if Congress could do it legally, which it cannot, the chances of Congress passing legislation on this topic before February are zero.

Go Vikes!

TiggerSr

by TiggerSr on Oct 8, 2009 4:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the always indepth

breakdown. It is much appreciated.

by TheEvilProfessor on Oct 9, 2009 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Legal or Illegal

Which part of the US Constitution permits the Federal Gov’t to pre-empt state law in the matter of drug testing? Interstate commerce, maybe?

More and more states are telling the Fed to take a hike these days, unless the Fed is exercising a power specifically delegated to it by the states. I think that attitude might be part of the issue of what’s going on now.

Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!

by DCPurple on Oct 9, 2009 1:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Which part of the “federal government” are you referring to? The constitution grants the Executive branch specifically enumerated powers, same with the judicial branch. Congress is granted Plenary powers. The residual is then handed to the states.

Congress’ plenary power grants them the ability to anything they want UNLESS it is a right reserved to the states, is barred by the constitution, or is held by the executive branch. Not the other way around where states or the executive/judicial branc have it unless they give it to congress. That’s why we are a Federal system, not a Confederacy.

…and yes, it would the commerce clause (right to regulate interstate commerce) that would give congress the ability to legislate on the issue of Professional sports drug testing.

We are the vikings.......resistance is futile.

by Hoss-Drone on Oct 9, 2009 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Which part of the "federal government" are you referring to? The constitution grants the Executive branch specifically enumerated powers, same with the judicial branch. Congress is granted Plenary powers. The residual is then handed to the states.
Congress’ plenary power grants them the ability to anything they want UNLESS it is a right reserved to the states, is barred by the constitution, or is held by the executive branch. Not the other way around where states or the executive/judicial branc have it unless they give it to congress. That’s why we are a Federal system, not a Confederacy.

US Constitution
Amendment X

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.

Again, I’m just iterating my understanding of these matter, not claiming absolute correctness of my understanding, but…

The 10th Amendment doesn’t discriminate between branches of the government, it refers the entire federal government.

The matter of the US gov’t being a set Federalist system was in dispute from the moment of the first gathering to create the Articles of Confederacy. Some folks wanted an uber-Federal gov’t, others wanted a gov’t so weak that it couldn’t function (which is what we got, the first time around). The matter has never been resolved one way or the other, but rather, is supposed to exist in a state of tension maintained by our infamous (and now broken, reference the 17th Amendment) system of checks and balances. Still, the 10th Amendment makes it clear where the powers of the Federal Gov’t stem from, and the broader range of legislative purview remains within the states, rather than the federal gov’t.

…and yes, it would the commerce clause (right to regulate interstate commerce) that would give congress the ability to legislate on the issue of Professional sports drug testing.

Are individual franchises (the teams) incorporated within the states where they are home-based? If so, then are they not specifically subject to the state laws in which they are incorporated, just like any other business?

How about… Mickey D’s. Let’s say that some clever locality, a city, bans fried foods from being sold in restaurants within it’s borders, due to the horrors of trans-fats, saturated fats, and all other sorts of fatty fatness. Can the franchise within the city say, “Oh no! You can’t do that! We signed a franchise contract with Mickey D that says we MUST sell French Fries!”. Interstate commerce laws might apply since the supplies are shipped in from region distribution centers and franchise agreements require an homogeneous product offering.

by DCPurple on Oct 9, 2009 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, the Commerce Clause

as detailed below.

Same way the Federal Government had authority to pass OSHA. (OSHA did not completely pre-empt the field and expressly allows the states to enact even stricter, but not inconsistent, workplace safety regs.) Also same authority that enabled Congress to pass the NLRMA — which pre-empts all state regulation of collective bargaining agreements.

It’s really not an open issue, guys. Trust me on this.

TiggerSr

by TiggerSr on Oct 9, 2009 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe you, that all this ground has been hashed over by much finer legal minds than I can offer (especially since I’m just a babbler :) ), however….

The times, they are a’changing.

In the not so distant past (mmm, a year ago), all of the states went more or less quietly along with anything the Federal gov’t said and imposed upon them, and we all assumed that the states powers devolved from the central gov’t, despite history suggesting otherwise. In the past year, however, the attitude has shifted, copies of the relevant documents have been dusted off and examined, and states are beginning to re-assert themselves against the central gov’t.

I wonder how many assumptions we’ve made in the past that just ain’t so, how many acquiescences were unnecessary and might now be challenged. More than one state is in the process of doing so, with every confidence of success as confidence in the federal gov’t bleeds away.

This matter could end up being a fascinating indication of which way the wind is blowing, and how strong the breeze really is :)

by DCPurple on Oct 9, 2009 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are right to some extent

There is and has been for quite some time a very heated debate among scholars and jurists as to the proper interpretation of the Commerce Clause, the validity of the Supreme Court rulings on this issue both before and after FDR packed the Court in the 1930’s to save his New Deal programs, and the proper interpretation of the 10th Amendment in this context.

This debate has intensified as a result of certain decisions by Rehnquist and his disciples over the past 2 decades. It is WAY beyond the scope of this forum. But the “change” you are referring to in your post is indeed the subject of intense debate among those with the power to implement it. You are right about that.

Having said that, again, trust me, on this issue, we are at the very HEART of the Commerce Clause. There is simply no one in the legal community who would argue that a federal statute regulating interstate professional sports competitions is NOT within the proper scope of Congress’ authoritry under the Commerce Clause and is a subject that is expressly reserved for the states to regulate under the 10th Amendment.

I don’t mean to be disrespectful. You are just trying to force a square peg into a round hole on this one, though.

The bottom line: whatever Waxman and Congress does here — it won’t result in the Williams Wall getting suspended. That may still happen — their state law claims are dubiuous in my view, and the State Court will probably rule against them if the case is not settled first — but it won’t happen this season.

TiggerSr

by TiggerSr on Oct 9, 2009 4:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I appreciate the considered responses

Thank you, and Hoss, for that :)

It wasn’t my intention to force any pegs, I’m more of a Jeffersonian philosophe who now sports a much better understanding of how the ship of state has managed to sail from it’s home port to where we are today.

by DCPurple on Oct 9, 2009 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

49ers expect to face us again in playoffs, and want to be able run better on us

by puddnhead on Oct 8, 2009 5:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Ha! +1

by Anthony21 on Oct 8, 2009 5:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol

+10 i like it

I piss people off on a fairly regular basis. I cherish my right to speak my mind, whether I sound like an uneducated savage or not. I've never been accused of keeping what I think a secret, nor will I ever. Don't like it? I don't care.

by IABerserker1 on Oct 8, 2009 11:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Steroids? Maybe.

I’m not so sure this is about steroids, I think this hearing has broader implications than steroids in football, for unions and business. Tigger is right right that CBAs don’t supersede state law, and that’s been a frustration for both unions and business, depending on if a specific CBA benefits labor or management. Waxman has been a strong union supporter, and if the issue is CBAs across state lines, it does fall under the Commerce portion of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The unions have also been a little frustrated with the current administration for not moving forward on union issues, so this could be a step towards appeasing the unions. How ironic would it be for Congress to appease the unions by hanging the NFL Players Union out to dry?

by Alchemist1342 on Oct 8, 2009 5:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Congress Lacks Authority on its Own to Change Things Involved in This

Both the Congress of the United States and the legislature of Minnesota (and every other state) are granted their respective powers by the United States Constitution.

The matter of whether federal or state law prevails in certain areas is established by the U. S. Constitution, not by Congress. In order to change which law prevails, state or federal, the Constitution itself would need to be amended. In order to amend the Constitution, the amendment would need to be ratified by three fourths of the states, currently meaning thirty-eight of them.

So, ask yourself this question: How many states have legislators that want a sports league and a sports union to have more power to determine what is legal within their own states than they themselves have as duly elected public officials?

The answer, I assure you, is well less than 38 of them. The legislators in many states may be crazy, but they are not massively suicidal. Would you want to do all that campaigning and fund rasing just to have Roger Goodell tell you that you don’t carry as much weight in making the law as he does? Not if you expect to impress your constituents during your next election. All hell will break loose before such an amendment is ratified.

by Elgar on Oct 9, 2009 1:33 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Go Back To Law School, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200

“The matter of whether federal or state law prevails in certain areas is established by the U. S. Constitution, not by Congress. In order to change which law prevails, state or federal, the Constitution itself would need to be amended.”

This statement is inaccurate. The US Constitution already resolves this issue — the Supremacy Clause of the US COnstitution dictates that when a state statute conflcts with a federal law on a subject, the federal law prevails. This is what lawyers mean when they say a state law is “pre-empted” by a federal law. Thus, if Congress passes a law that governs the construction and enforcement of collective bargaining agreements with unions — which it has — any state law that “conflicts” with that federal law is “pre-empted” and therefore unenforceable in court.

The NFL argued that Minnesota’s state drug testing statutes, when applied to the Williamses, conflicted with the federal law governing construction and enforcement of CBA’s. The 8th Circuit court of appeals, applying well established Supreme Court precedent, held that the enforcement of the Williamses’ rights under Minnesota’s state drug testing statutes does not involve construction or enforcement of the NFL’s CBA with the players’ union and therefore the Williamses’ claims under those state statutes was not “pre-empted” by the federal law governing the construction and enforcement of CBA’s.

If Congress were to pass a law that established the standards for creating and enforcing drug testing policies for all athletes engaged in interstate competition, and if that law were to expressly or implicitly “pre-empt” any contrary or inconsistent state regulation in that area, then this new federal statute would “pre-empt” the application of Minnesota’s state drug testing statutes to NFL players and other professional athletes, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution. The need for such potential legislation is what Waxman intends to investigate in the hearings he is planning.

The preferences of state legislators are irrelevant to this process and its outcome. It is solely a question of whether Congress/Obama decide to exercise the right of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution in order to regulate drug testing of professional athletes. No amendment of the US Constitution is required at all — the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause already provide all the constitutional authority that Congress needs to fix this problem.

Quite frankly, the Williamses’ case — when contrasted with the planned suspensions of the Saints’ players for the exact same conduct — is the poster child for the need for such legislation by Congress. It makes total sense for Waxman to do what he is doing. The timing, however — leaking the announcement of the hearings just before the Vikes play the Rams — is a bit suspicious to me.

TiggerSr

by TiggerSr on Oct 9, 2009 8:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well... I'm not a Lawyer, but...

I can read :)

The Supremacy Clause

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Reading that, it seems that when it states, “and the Laws of the US which shall be made in Pursuance thereof”, that “in Pursuance thereof” necessarily refers to the previously mentioned “Constitution”, meaning that applies to those laws which are in conformance to the US Constitution. That make sense to you?

In short, the Laws which are supreme over state laws are those which are in accordance with the statutes and premises of the US Constitution, and nothing more. Unless there is a statement in the US Constitution that governs the mandate of a labor union or corporate entity, there can be no federal law with the authority to supersede state law in that regard.

Of course, such a change can always be made… all we need is another Constitution Amendment :)

by DCPurple on Oct 9, 2009 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are reading “in pursuance thereof” from a common sense perspective and not the legal perspective and meaning of the phrase.

Common sense: Pursuance = in chase of, to get at, to reach the goal

Legal sense: Pursuance = in chase of/to reach a goal OR anything allowed by

So when a law “shall be made in pursuance thereof” it means anything which the constitution directs shall be done OR it means anything that is allowed by it.

We are the vikings.......resistance is futile.

by Hoss-Drone on Oct 9, 2009 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Semantics

Hoss is right.

“made in Pursuance thereof” means only that the federal “law” has to be constitutional — i.,e., that the statute was enacted “pursuant” to the authority granted to Congress and the President by the Constitution.

A statute enacted by Congress and signed by the President under the authority granted to them by the Commerce Clause is thus a “Law[]” “of the United States” that is “made in Pursuance” of the Constitution.

TiggerSr

by TiggerSr on Oct 9, 2009 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

All that explains it

Bar-stool barristry is only an occasional pastime, common sense is all I have, and even that has on occasion run aground on the rocky shoals of whimsy :)

by DCPurple on Oct 9, 2009 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nope

the phrase “Laws of the United States” applies to all federal statutes, regulations, and federal common law. Any state statute that “conflicts” with a federal statute is pre-empted by the Supremacy Clause. This is true for ALL federal statutes and regulations. (If the federal statute is unconstitutional, you never even get to the pre-emption issue. But Congress clearlhas constitutional authority to regulate drug testing of persons engaged in interstate commerce.)

Again, trust me on this. I have been practicing law in federal courts for a quarter of a century. This is really not open to legitimate debate.

Or, don’t trust me, and read the 8th Circuit opinion in the Williamses’ case instead.

TiggerSr

by TiggerSr on Oct 9, 2009 3:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

As someone who has graduated law school, I can tell that this post is correct and Elgar is not.

Furthermore, there are no retroactive laws. Congress cannot pass a law to reverse the decision of the court regarding the Williams Wall case. They can only pass a law that will clearly “occupy the field” (ie pre-empt state law) regarding athlete substance abuse testing going forward. So the Williams’ are safe unless the NFL is able to successfully petition the SCOTUS and get a favorable ruling from them.

We are the vikings.......resistance is futile.

by Hoss-Drone on Oct 9, 2009 9:55 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

grrrrr…….hit reply to Tigger Sr……….this post is a reply to his post directly above it.

We are the vikings.......resistance is futile.

by Hoss-Drone on Oct 9, 2009 9:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cool!

So maybe you can explain where the US Constitution grants authority to the Federal gov’t to overrule state gov’t in regard to CBAs, unions, or corporate agreements? That Supremacy Clause isn’t a license to run amok, it only refers to laws based on the US Constitution, specifically.

by DCPurple on Oct 9, 2009 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not overrule. I dont think anyone here has said overrule. Overrule implies that the law is retroactive. I specifically say that there are no retroactive laws (grandfather clauses are not retro-active btw, they simply bring the past forward). “Correction or alteration” would be a better term. The court rules. Then congress passes a law to the contrary. The new law is for going forward but CANNOT overrule the courts prior decision. What the court has ruled is the rule for that case. Keep in mind that includes the resolution of the case including post decision remedies. So if the court effectively says “you cannot take action in response to the williams drug test on such and such date” – that means forever. Even if congress later comes in and occupies the field and supercedes the state law, the court’s ruling is still valid and cannot be re-examined because the courts will not re-examine it under Res Judicata. (Layman’s understanding: you cannot re-litigate the same case after a final decision – though its more complicated than that.)

We are the vikings.......resistance is futile.

by Hoss-Drone on Oct 9, 2009 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another good term would be “invalidate” or “obsolete”. Congress occupies the field and renders the state laws obsolete.

We are the vikings.......resistance is futile.

by Hoss-Drone on Oct 9, 2009 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Supremacy Clause

Your argument proceeds from the faulty premise that the Supremacy Clause does not apply to ALL federal statutes and regulations that are constitutional, but only to those federal statutes or regs that somehow implement some directive in the constitution. That premise is incorrect, as I explained above.

The Supremacy Clause is not a license to run amok — but, the Commerce Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court — ever since FDR packed the Court back in the 1930’s — to constitute just such a license for Congress to run amok and regulate alomst everything it wants to. While some conservatives have argued that the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence under the Commerce Clause should be revisited and narrowed, and while some disciples of Justice Rehnquist have nibbled at the edges, trust me — a law designed to regulate drug testing of professional athletes engaged in interstate competition is nowhere NEAR the edge here, it is at the very center of what was intended by the Founders to constitute intersstate commerce and thus the subject of legitimate regulation by Congress.

TiggerSr

by TiggerSr on Oct 9, 2009 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I really shouldn't post this one, but fools rush in...

The Supremacy Clause is not a license to run amok — but, the Commerce Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court — ever since FDR packed the Court back in the 1930’s — to constitute just such a license for Congress to run amok and regulate alomst everything it wants to. While some conservatives have argued that the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence under the Commerce Clause should be revisited and narrowed, and while some disciples of Justice Rehnquist have nibbled at the edges, trust me — a law designed to regulate drug testing of professional athletes engaged in interstate competition is nowhere NEAR the edge here, it is at the very center of what was intended by the Founders to constitute intersstate commerce and thus the subject of legitimate regulation by Congress.

Just a comment and observation… according to your statement, this isn’t what the Founders intended at all. This is what FDR and the Progressive Court began and intended. I think there’s a valid distinction there.

by DCPurple on Oct 9, 2009 4:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i just want to say, you guys is smart!

and i appreciate all of the information and explanation provided by you guys! it makes me feel better about everything and helps put my mind at ease. Thanks, Gents!!

by IABerserker1 on Oct 9, 2009 4:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs