Question Of The Day

Under what provision of the Constitution is the United States Congress authorized to establish a commission to regulate boxing ?

The move is part of a campaign to protect youngsters coming into the sport, the actions of promoters and the independence of judges. Among a range of schemes to be introduced will be a new licensing system applying to boxers, managers, promoters and sanctioning bodies.

The new agency – the US Boxing Adminstration – will also regulate the major TV networks when they act as fight promoters.

Because, you know, Congress doesn’t have anything better to do.

And who do you have to think for this legislation ? None other than the soon-to-be nominee of the Republican Party:

The bill was the brainchild of Senator John McCain, a long time supporter of reform in the sport.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I will never vote for John McCain.

H/T: QandO

  • UCrawford

    Under what provision of the Constitution is the United States Congress authorized to establish a commission to regulate boxing?

    It’s under a little known codicil in the secret Constitutional charter that gives John McCain wide-reaching powers in times of imminent threat to his favorite sport or whenever he feels a need to mug for the cameras. :)

    Not that boxing isn’t run by some of the slimiest guys on Earth, but it’s ridiculous that Congress spends our money to get involved in it.

  • Brad Warbiany

    I’m trying to come up with a humorous point about how asinine this whole thing is.

    But I just can’t. It’s not funny. Is this really what the Republican party has reduced itself to?

  • UCrawford


    To be honest, I don’t find it all that shocking, and as far as involvement in sports goes this is probably the least-worst. McCain started this thing about ten years ago, mainly because Don King, who completely controlled the heavyweight division, apparently was cheating boxers out of millions, there were credible allegations of fight-fixing and nobody was holding him accountable because he was essentially the only game in town…before King it was the mob controlling things through violence and intimidation, in which all of that stuff definitely went on.

    The recent problems, I think, mainly stemmed from the fact that boxing is licensed in each state, which helped to keep power in the hands of Don King and a few others by excluding competing organizations (basically a state-sponsored oligopoly) which meant that for a long time the only way the sport was going to reform was by either getting rid of the licensing (which the states probably just weren’t going to do), or by having Congress intervene. Nowadays, boxing’s been in a fade for awhile with new competition coming in from groups like the UFC or other MMA practitioners, so it’s almost a moot point. UFC is simply a better overall product than pro boxing, so boxing will either have to reform their practices to get more talent or they’ll get squeezed by the market…which you’re already starting to see. I don’t consider Congress’ involvement so much abhorrent (except for the Constitutional aspect) as just unnecessary.

  • Christine the Soccer Mom

    This is right up there with the question “Why is Congress investigating steroids in baseball?”

    Obviously, there’s nothing else to do because everything runs so smoothly, Social Security has been fixed, the borders are secure, etc.


  • Tom G

    I am totally opposed to this, and to any investigation of steroids by Congress.

    It boils down to this – No one makes me buy tickets to boxing or baseball or football etc etc, therefore I really don’t care what the hell sports people do, how much they get paid, or much else. I will start caring when I start getting tickets.

    (Yeah, I know about stadiums subsidized by cities and all, but I think that’s a separate issue – and I’m against that, too)

  • Adam

    This is just another piece of “commerce” that will forever be upheld due to the expanded definition of interstate commerce and the necessary and proper clauses, as upheld by the SCOTUS, starting with Marbury v. Madison, stating that “interstate commerce” is more than just “commerce” itself.

  • Doug Mataconis


    While I agree that the commerce clause has been applied far beyond it’s original intent, Marbury isn’t the case that started it.

  • Adam

    My bad Doug, Marbury is NOT the case. Rather it is Gibbons v. Ogden where John Marshall said that “commerce” is more than buying and selling, but an “intercourse” of exchange that includes shipping and navigation. Unfortunately, this is the start.

    Marbury v. Madison of course is the case where the court took up the power of judicial review for itself, which many scholars can likewise argue against.