the historical oddity of the state exception in the legislation

[Wynton]

As many have noted, the legislation permits a state to authorize and license an online site, provided that it is located within the state and takes bets from only people physically located within the state.

I just thought I'd point out that this provision is quite weird, from a lawyer's perspective. Historically, the federal govenment has stepped in to stop state legislation that discriminates against out-of-staters. Congress has either written legislation outright forbidding it, or courts have stepped in and ruled that the state policy violates the federal constitution.

Thus, with the current legislation, the federal government is taking the unusual (and arguably backwards) step of permitting states to discriminate against people who do not live within their borders.

Until a state actually goes forward and licenses such a site, though, I don't know that my observation has any use, aside from an intellectual curiosity.

[Jeff_B]

just skimmed the text myself and thought that was odd... doesn't seem very UNITED.

[BluffTHIS!]

Wynton,

I seems to me from my non-lawyer perspective, that the language in question actually is unecessary. The commerce clause of the constitution and subsequent SCOTUS rulings interpreting same, would not in fact allow congress to prohibit what they seemed to grant, nor to allow what they did prohibit (a state site taking customers from other states), because doing so would force a state to acquiesce to a legalized form of gambling without its consent.