Legal Precedent - Unconstitutional

[dxu05]

In Dean MilkCo. Vs Madison & Gratiot Sanitary vs. Michigan, both cases involved protectionism of state commerce vs burden on interstate commerce. The current poker legislation has strong standings of protectionism of interstate commerce vs international commerce. In Gratiot Sanitary, the consensus was that protectionism is illegal, as well as the burden put on interstate commerce was illegitimate; they discriminated between solid waste outside of the state versus solid waste inside of the state. The case law was that Michigan passed an act that landfills cannot accept trash from outside the state otherwise their license is revoked. It was then brought to the supreme court and the finding was that solid waste was clearly being discriminated against and that there was no valid factor other than economic protectionism.

In the case of Poker Company XXX versus US, gambling is what is being regulated. International protectionism has no precedent as tarriffs and special taxes on imported goods is legal. Within a state, if states can legalize internet gambling since the port defense bill does not overlap any state laws, then online poker can be legal. Online poker, if not a game of skill, is a game of chance/gambling. If so, it is a regulated source of interstate commerce. This offends interstate economic protectionism as other forms of similar gambling (horseracing) are allowed to be interstate commerce rights; in the words of Justice Stevens, there is no demonstrably justified valid factor unrelated to economic protectionism.

At the same time, this was due to the aspect of the Commerce clause that prohibits STATES for advancing their own commercial interest, much could be said however to make the argument that Congress can not/should not advance certain states own commercial interest in equality of gambling for games of chance.

What do you think; I'm still doing research but I honestly believe the precedent is there.

[2461Badugi]

The problem with this is there's no international constitution for it to be prohibited by. Nor is there an international court with similar powers over the US as the US Supreme Court has over the states.

[BluffTHIS!]

Check out:

US v. Lopez
US v. Morrison
Gonzales v. Raich

Unless the last one is overturned by the SCOTUS on another occasion, then we're SOL. That decision held that congress can prohibit a state from legalizing the growing and use of marijuana in its own borders for use by its own citizens, and that not allowing congress to impose its drug laws on the states would impede its regulation of interstate commerce. If they can justify that, then they can justify any regulation or prohibition of any form of commerce, the wishes of individual states notwithstanding.

Indeed, there would seem good reason to believe that prior to the passage of the UIGE, that state laws banning online gambling weren't constitutional (assuming the Wire Act doesn't give them sanction) as only congress has the power to regulate foreign commerce.

[dxu05]

Correct, which is why I don't tackle that aspect completely. The more questionable part is what if a poker company sets up in California and does Online poker within California. If it is defined as a game of skill then there are yet to be regulations for online games of skill, I believe I can still play chess on Yahoo.

If it is defined to be a game of chance, then in that case the bill is protectionism interstate between games of chance. Just like horseracing, poker would be a game of chance that is illegitimate interstate, but legitimate within a state. This constitutes unconstitutional interstate protectionism.

That withstanding, there is to be the balance that must be weighed as when approached by all supreme court decisions. The benefit of the legislation versus the destruction of the legislation. Online gaming is said to be a 13 billion dollar industry; limited to only the US we can create potential numbers of anywhere from 2 billion to 8 billion dollar industry if 40% of international gambling is from the US. In that case, the benefits of the bill must outweigh 2 billion to 8 billion dollars of interstate business that can potentially occur. The benefits as stated are money laundering, corruption of children, etc. Thus, it needs to be then proven that the effect on the lives of those who play poker is A: Negative, B: unavoidable by a better alternative, and C: worthy of a benefit greater than 2-8 billion dollars.

I find it hard to quantify A or B as a good majority of gamblers are consenting adults, B is certainly not valid since the alternative of taxing and regulation is far better. And C, is unquantifiable, in fact I doubt many qualified experts will say that the damage caused by online poker exceeds billions of dollars.

The case remains to be made.

[dxu05]

[ QUOTE ]
Check out:

US v. Lopez
US v. Morrison
Gonzales v. Raich

Unless the last one is overturned by the SCOTUS on another occasion, then we're SOL. That decision held that congress can prohibit a state from legalizing the growing and use of marijuana in its own borders for use by its own citizens, and that not allowing congress to impose its drug laws on the states would impede its regulation of interstate commerce. If they can justify that, then they can justify any regulation or prohibition of any form of commerce, the wishes of individual states notwithstanding.

Indeed, there would seem good reason to believe that prior to the passage of the UIGE, that state laws banning online gambling weren't constitutional (assuming the Wire Act doesn't give them sanction) as only congress has the power to regulate foreign commerce.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the Gomez case is different because the act of growing Marijuana in general is illegal federally and statewide. Gambling within a state is legal, the wire act prohibits it however the general act of gambling is legal in many states. Thus, gambling is a legitimate industry of commerce, and not in the same class as growing Marijuana. Aside from that, we should examine the unique scenario of a poker company forming in California, allowing only californian residents to gamble seeing that it is a game of skill in California. Then what happens if someone from another state slips in?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the Gomez case is different because the act of growing Marijuana in general is illegal federally and statewide.

[/ QUOTE ]


The only reason marijuana is illegal by federal law now is because of the Gonzales case, which gave the federal government the authority to make it illegal (as it had been), which was what was being challenged.


Personally I don't see how the commerce clause implies any ability of the federal government to totally prohibit commerce in a class of goods, but only to regulate same. However the court hasn't seen it that way.

[dxu05]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe the Gomez case is different because the act of growing Marijuana in general is illegal federally and statewide.

[/ QUOTE ]


The only reason marijuana is illegal by federal law now is because of the Gonzales case, which gave the federal government the authority to make it illegal (as it had been), which was what was being challenged.
Personally I don't see how the commerce clause implies any ability of the federal government to totally prohibit commerce in a class of goods, but only to regulate same. However the court hasn't seen it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

In US vs. Morrison the case was that result is that there needs to be a direct commerce base for the Commerce Clause to apply, dead women caused an indirect interstate commercial effect however did not justify being a direct commercial base. The Morrison case was also crux because it established that the judicial system determines the actual relativity to commerce that congressional laws have, not Congress. The dissenting opinion of Justice Souter & others was that Congress shows sufficient proof of experts to regulate as such.

The reason that Congress and the judicial system dont agree eye to eye is because that anything of consequence has some sort of EV effect. Anything that causes damage is always associated with a loss of value. As such, any action committed can arguably have an interstate commerce effect somewhere down the road. I agree with the judicial opinion that Congress can not be the ultimate decision on the substantial interstate economic effect of laws as such.

Back to Gonzales vs Raich, the argument that it wasn't interstate commerce since Raich and Monson consumed on their own. Due to Wickard vs Filiburn, self consumption is commerce which is why it allowed Congress to regulate.

The case here is different because it involves the legality of Congress to impose protectionism on interstate commerce; no one is saying this isn't interstate commerce.

The argument here is via online gambling versus gambling in terms of commercial discrimination. The other argument is via certain types of online gambling versus others being illegal. Online Gambling versus gambling can be arguably said to be different industries of trade; however horse racing and poker, if poker is a game of chance, is the same industry and therefore clearly a murky case of discriminatory protectionism of interstate commerce.

[2461Badugi]

[ QUOTE ]
Correct, which is why I don't tackle that aspect completely. The more questionable part is what if a poker company sets up in California and does Online poker within California.

[/ QUOTE ]

UIGEA explicitly does not apply to intrastate gambling legal under the laws of the state in question.

[dxu05]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Correct, which is why I don't tackle that aspect completely. The more questionable part is what if a poker company sets up in California and does Online poker within California.

[/ QUOTE ]
UIGEA explicitly does not apply to intrastate gambling legal under the laws of the state in question.

[/ QUOTE ]


That isn't my argument, my argument is that since thats a legal form of commerce, it's unfair protectionism - interstate.

[webmonarch]

Trying to knonk out the law with an interstate commerce argument is a complete non-starter. Actually, I think, constitutionally, there's no issue at all with it, or at least, no argument that has any legitimate chance of holding up.

The best (only?) chance is the WTO stance.

[JPFisher55]

But the Govt. might have legitimate purpose in protecting minors and addictive gamblers. I like the legal argument; very good.

[dxu05]

[ QUOTE ]
Trying to knonk out the law with an interstate commerce argument is a complete non-starter. Actually, I think, constitutionally, there's no issue at all with it, or at least, no argument that has any legitimate chance of holding up.

The best (only?) chance is the WTO stance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please support why you think protectionism is constitutional in between forms of gambling.

Moreso, the crux of the issue with online gambling is it's interstate nature, so what other venue are you talking about? Gambling is legal locally, it's when it becomes interstate that we have problems.

[dxu05]

[ QUOTE ]
But the Govt. might have legitimate purpose in protecting minors and addictive gamblers. I like the legal argument; very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely, however as accorded in the Gratiot vs Michigan case, if there is another less interstate restrictive recourse such as regulating, it should be applied. Banning gambling is not the least restrictive way to protect minors and banning online gambling is not a recourse to protect addicted gamblers in any way, shape, or form.

[dxu05]

As for WTO action, it is more of a gamble to rely on that than it is to have a concrete resolution in the US justice court. The US can choose to accept or deny WTO rulings as both parties have to agree; Congress cannot oblige to respond to the US Supreme Court ruling. I think I'd rather exhaust our options for a permanent protection of online gambling versus a controversial WTO ruling that may or may not be followed.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Please support why you think protectionism is constitutional in between forms of gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what you're getting at. Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce.

The cases you're citing (like the Michigan landfull thing) involve state laws, not federal laws. States cannot regulate interstate commerce. Congress can.

[dxu05]

My question is that since UIGEA explicitly does not pre-empt state law, what the hell happens when california opens a gaming site that allows/accidentally allows interstate commerce.

[dxu05]

Another perspective, under the equal protection clause, disparate treatment of online poker is irrational. People who can gamble on horses online absolutely should have the ability to gamble on poker online. There is no rational connection between banning poker and legalizing online horse gaming. This classification is unconstitutional; for example if there were a law stating that non caffeine based carbon beverages are allowed to be contained in glass bottles while caffeine based carbonated beverages are not allowed to be produced with glass bottles; this would be illegal. This is much to the same degree of poker being illegal online and horse racing being legal.

Both of these present the same societal threat/risk yet one is given completely different regulation.

[Mr.K]

At the risk of treating serious subject matter very, very un-seriously, I have this to say about this thread:

"OMG ************************************************** ***"

Get real, bud. The law may suck, but it is quite clearly constitutional. You are offering a lot of very impressionable people a ton of false hope when you post garbage like this. Please stop. You stop the entire poker community from moving forward with *productive* responses to our current situation when you sidetrack us on these tangents that are dead-ends from the get-go. So please stop. Like, NOW.

[dxu05]

[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of treating serious subject matter very, very un-seriously, I have this to say about this thread:

"OMG ************************************************** ***"

Get real, bud. The law may suck, but it is quite clearly constitutional. You are offering a lot of very impressionable people a ton of false hope when you post garbage like this. Please stop. You stop the entire poker community from moving forward with *productive* responses to our current situation when you sidetrack us on these tangents that are dead-ends from the get-go. So please stop. Like, NOW.

[/ QUOTE ]

??? Thanks for providing insightful opinions on the subject matter; A, nothing is quite clearly constitutional, you are neither a supreme court judge, educated lawyer, or some sort of expert on the matter. B: this is a fine venue, protectionist law that affects business between states(the bill affects both states and international business) has significant precedent in being overturned. C:What exactly are these "productive responses," are they the thousands of hey, launder money with me in sweden, which site should I play at now, send e-mails to your representative so you can get an easy idealogical response?

You understand that the only venues of solution are either A: the fed doesnt crack down too hard, B: somehow the US listens to the WTO, or C: the Supreme Court hears a test case and makes a final decision.

Thanks for offering your expert heavily substantiated legal advice and great optimism; along with an open minded exploration of the subject.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Get real, bud. The law may suck, but it is quite clearly constitutional. You are offering a lot of very impressionable people a ton of false hope when you post garbage like this. Please stop.

[/ QUOTE ]
A, nothing is quite clearly constitutional, you are neither a supreme court judge, educated lawyer, or some sort of expert on the matter.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mr.K is correct. The issues you are raising are not gray areas. They are not close at all. The UIGEA is quite clearly constitutional. You are misapplying both commerce clause analysis and equal protection clause analysis. (And I am an "educated lawyer.")

[dxu05]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Get real, bud. The law may suck, but it is quite clearly constitutional. You are offering a lot of very impressionable people a ton of false hope when you post garbage like this. Please stop.

[/ QUOTE ]
A, nothing is quite clearly constitutional, you are neither a supreme court judge, educated lawyer, or some sort of expert on the matter.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mr.K is correct. The issues you are raising are not gray areas. They are not close at all. The UIGEA is quite clearly constitutional. (And I am an "educated lawyer.")

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay Maurie, glad I'm chatting with an educated lawyer, under the provision that no state laws shall be changed by this action; A poker company sets up in California to produce online gaming since it is a game of skill. Now the game of skill is legal in California online, and California invites people in all the other states to come play poker. What happens; state laws are explicitly not pre-empted, the issue then I would think becomes a states rights issue of regulation on interstate commerce.

We're not talking about gibraltar, I don't argue that Congress can ban gibraltar from providing us Poker, I am arguing that California can provide us Poker and other states cannot regulate the interstate commerce of the online transactions in poker.

As for the equal protection clause, is this not a discrimination against a class of people who play poker online? This is as grey as DOMA being constitutional; can Congress effectively discriminate between classes of people and benefit others of relevantly the same standing?

[Russ Fox]

What happens when California opens an online gaming site? Nothing, when (or should I say "if") it happens. UIGEA specifically allows it. I'll point out that the chances of such legislation passing the California legislature today (which is an extremely "nanny-state" legislature) is zero.

Also, while you and I may believe poker is a game of skill, courts have come to the opposite conclusion. Indeed, the definition used in the UIGEA - "a game subject to chance" - probably precludes the skill argument (although, as Chuck Humphrey noted, it's the best and only argument left). I strongly suggest you look at Chuck Humphrey's analysis of whether poker is a game of skill or chance. (http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Articles-Notes/online-poker-skill.htm)

Finally, California courts have not ruled that poker is a game of skill. That's an urban myth. Mr. Humphrey has also come to the conclusion that online poker is illegal in California. (http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Articles-Notes/play-online-california.htm)

Look, the law may be stupid, it may be unfair, but it's definitely constitutional.

-- Russ Fox

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
What happens when California opens an online gaming site? Nothing, when (or should I say "if") it happens. UIGEA specifically allows it. I'll point out that the chances of such legislation passing the California legislature today (which is an extremely "nanny-state" legislature) is zero.

Also, while you and I may believe poker is a game of skill, courts have come to the opposite conclusion. Indeed, the definition used in the UIGEA - "a game subject to chance" - probably precludes the skill argument (although, as Chuck Humphrey noted, it's the best and only argument left). I strongly suggest you look at Chuck Humphrey's analysis of whether poker is a game of skill or chance. (http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Articles-Notes/online-poker-skill.htm)

Finally, California courts have not ruled that poker is a game of skill. That's an urban myth. Mr. Humphrey has also come to the conclusion that online poker is illegal in California. (http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Articles-Notes/play-online-california.htm)

Look, the law may be stupid, it may be unfair, but it's definitely constitutional.

-- Russ Fox

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, we all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to Mr. Fox for bringing sanity and crystal clear analysis to the discussion. Thanks for posting, Russ, and glad to have you here in the leigslation forum.

To the OP: I understand you feel passionately about this subject matter, and that you may also care deeply about commerce clause cases, but please I implore you to stop saying what you are saying. I'll grant that you raise interesting ideas, but I feel compelled to say again that your conclusions are wrong on the merits, and dangerous for those who lack the knowledge to parse falsehood from truth in this area.

[Mendacious]

Sorry, Still don't get your point (I'm also a lawyer).

My brief recollection of the Commerce Clause, (and it has been awhile) is that: A) gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce and b) by implication (dormant commerce clause) prohibits States from passing protectionist laws where interstate commerce is implicated. Once upon a time it was used a restriction against Congress passing laws which interfered with activities that occurred within the borders of a State, but I believe that has mostly fallen by the wayside in today's world.

As I read it all UIGEA does is confer enforcement ability to the Fed's to enforce existing State laws against online gambling and proscribe Federal penalties for online gambling sites and funding vehicles which violate existing State laws on gambling.

I don't see how the Commerce Clause is implicated by this Act.

I do however see how one could argue that the State laws banning online gambling (especially where the State's allow some form of gambling within their borders such as horse racing or lotteries) runs afoul of the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Washington passed such a law recently-- it is on the books ready to be challenged. I don't see how UIGEA changed anything in that regard. If anything, UIGEA might be construed as explicitly removing any dormant commerce clause violations of State laws which prohibit online gaming by virtue of the fact that Congress appears to endorse such regulation as an interstate regulatory scheme.

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the Gomez case is different because the act of growing Marijuana in general is illegal federally and statewide. Gambling within a state is legal, the wire act prohibits it however the general act of gambling is legal in many states. Thus, gambling is a legitimate industry of commerce, and not in the same class as growing Marijuana.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your "gambling is legal in many states" premise is wrong, IMHO.

If you are right, then "many" States can have intrastate online gambling, correct?

[03 Z4]

Realistically speaking... There's no way this is getting anywhere near any court where the un-constitution of UGIEA is the crux of the case EVEN if you have case law!!! (and I'm NO lawyer)

[Mendacious]

Realistically speaking... There's no way this is getting anywhere near any court where the un-constitution of UGIEA is the crux of the case EVEN if you have case law!!! (and I'm NO lawyer)
[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. I do think an argument can be made that State laws prohibiting internet gambling are illegal, where the States permit lottery and horse racing within their borders. However I am uncertain what the outcome of such a challenge would be.

[Mendacious]

Equal protection? Are you serious? This does not pass the laugh test.

[whitepotatoe]

[ QUOTE ]
... there is to be the balance that must be weighed as when approached by all supreme court decisions. The benefit of the legislation versus the destruction of the legislation. Online gaming is said to be a 13 billion dollar industry; limited to only the US we can create potential numbers of anywhere from 2 billion to 8 billion dollar industry if 40% of international gambling is from the US. In that case, the benefits of the bill must outweigh 2 billion to 8 billion dollars of interstate business that can potentially occur. The benefits as stated are money laundering, corruption of children, etc. Thus, it needs to be then proven that the effect on the lives of those who play poker is A: Negative, B: unavoidable by a better alternative, and C: worthy of a benefit greater than 2-8 billion dollars.

I find it hard to quantify A or B as a good majority of gamblers are consenting adults, B is certainly not valid since the alternative of taxing and regulation is far better. And C, is unquantifiable, in fact I doubt many qualified experts will say that the damage caused by online poker exceeds billions of dollars.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why you think the courts must perform some sort cost/benefits analysis. They don't. Legislation can be economically unwise, or even totally foolish, and still be constitutional.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please support why you think protectionism is constitutional in between forms of gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what you're getting at. Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce.

The cases you're citing (like the Michigan landfull thing) involve state laws, not federal laws. States cannot regulate interstate commerce. Congress can.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. The cases you cite are off point. The standard is not the same. Congress only needs a legitimate purpose for this law to be constitutional. Someone has gone bankrupt before from interstate online gambling, and it might happen again, so there is a legitimate purpose (at least if the courts don't depart from their precedent).

[ QUOTE ]
Another perspective, under the equal protection clause, disparate treatment of online poker is irrational. People who can gamble on horses online absolutely should have the ability to gamble on poker online. There is no rational connection between banning poker and legalizing online horse gaming. This classification is unconstitutional; for example if there were a law stating that non caffeine based carbon beverages are allowed to be contained in glass bottles while caffeine based carbonated beverages are not allowed to be produced with glass bottles; this would be illegal. This is much to the same degree of poker being illegal online and horse racing being legal.

Both of these present the same societal threat/risk yet one is given completely different regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]
People get equal protection, not forms of gambling or soft drinks. If there was a legitimate reason to not bottle carbonated beverages in glass (like they explode when heated and injure people), then Congress could pass a law banning carbonated beverages in glass, while allowing non-carbonated beverages in glass. Only if there the court finds that there is no legitamate reason, would it be unconstitutional.

Poker players are not a class of people that receive equal protection. It is theoretically possible that the Supreme Court could rule that they are, but I'd bet my testicles that they won't.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
Realistically speaking... There's no way this is getting anywhere near any court where the un-constitution of UGIEA is the crux of the case EVEN if you have case law!!! (and I'm NO lawyer)

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a lawyer, and realistically speaking, this law will be declared unconstitutional roughly around the same time that roughly 7 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices we have today simultaneously issue a public apology and decide the Lochner case (1908 for the non-lawyers out there) was right all along.

[webmonarch]

[ QUOTE ]
Please support why you think protectionism is constitutional in between forms of gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. I'm an attorney, and I think every attorney who has posted in this thread has agreed with me.

Echoing a few other comments, your suggestions are just not applicable in any serious setting. I mean, talking academically is cool, but actually applying these theories you suggest is just not realistic.

[AlexM]

Marajuana laws are protecionism for alcohol and tobacco industries. Fat lot of good that does in getting it legalized.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Get real, bud. The law may suck, but it is quite clearly constitutional. You are offering a lot of very impressionable people a ton of false hope when you post garbage like this. Please stop.

[/ QUOTE ]
A, nothing is quite clearly constitutional, you are neither a supreme court judge, educated lawyer, or some sort of expert on the matter.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mr.K is correct. The issues you are raising are not gray areas. They are not close at all. The UIGEA is quite clearly constitutional. You are misapplying both commerce clause analysis and equal protection clause analysis. (And I am an "educated lawyer.")

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's actually quite clearly unconstitional to anyone who actually reads the Constitution and studies the Founders' original intent, lawyer or no. It's only constitutional if you buy into the BS misinterpretations of the Constitution that our government uses on a regular basis or completely ignore original intent. Of course, as it's a lawyer's job to exploit the law for their benefit, most of them are going to respect the way our government exploits the Constitution.

Now, just because it is unconstitutional doesn't mean anyone cares. The Supreme Court would rule it constitutional (although Clarence Thomas would make the correct dissenting ruling), so there's no point in getting any hope up over the constitutional aspect of this.

[JPFisher55]

It amazes me that the Supreme Court just ruled that the Geneva Convention applies to the detainees at Gitmo and thus the government actions and laws are restrained by that treaty regarding treatment and trials of these detainees who happend to be terrorists.
However, everyone seems to think that the WTO and related trade treaties do not restrain government laws, actions and regulations against online gambling websites.
I am an attorney, also. I won't pretend to know the constitutionality or enforceability of this new law. However, I am amazed at how many lawyers unequivicably disregard every potential legal argument against this law.
Every lawyer knows how difficult it is to predict the outcome of any litigation, especially a complex case like any case against this law.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
However, everyone seems to think that the WTO and related trade treaties do not restrain government laws, actions and regulations against online gambling websites.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would certainly say that a WTO based court case has much more chance of success than a constitionally based one.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay Maurie, glad I'm chatting with an educated lawyer, under the provision that no state laws shall be changed by this action; A poker company sets up in California to produce online gaming since it is a game of skill. Now the game of skill is legal in California online, and California invites people in all the other states to come play poker. What happens; state laws are explicitly not pre-empted, the issue then I would think becomes a states rights issue of regulation on interstate commerce.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Game of skill" really has nothing to do with it. Poker is legal in California (without a percentage rake) by statute, not because it's a game of skill. (Section 330 of the penal code specifically lists the games that are unlawful. Poker is no longer on the list.) But that's a side issue.

If California allows online poker and somebody in Washington State plays, the person from Washington State is not violating any California law. But he may very well be violating a Washington State law. It depends on how Washington's statute reads. In that case, money transfers to a California poker site on behalf of the person in Washington State are subject to the UIGEA.

The protectionism thing (i.e., the negative aspect of the Commerce Clause) doesn't come into play because no state makes it illegal for its citizens to play on sites hosted within the state but not to play on sites hosted outside the state. And even if a state did do this, it looks like it has Congress's specific blessing to do it under the UIGEA.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the equal protection clause, is this not a discrimination against a class of people who play poker online?

[/ QUOTE ]
All laws discriminate against somebody. Laws against poker discriminate against poker players. But since poker players are not a protected class, Congress needs only a rational basis for the discrimination. That's easy: poker causes people to incur debts. (And note that the UIGEA doesn't even discriminate against poker players since it doesn't make poker illegal. It makes money transfers to unlawful websites illegal. The rational basis for prohibiting the funding of unlawful businesses should be self-evident.)

Also, you are not making the right comparison by saying that poker players are being treated differently from horse-racing bettors. The government is perfectly free to make one bad thing illegal without making every bad thing illegal. If poker is bad, the government can prohibit it without regard to whether it also prohibits betting on horses.

The relevant analysis is whether poker players may be treated differently from non-poker players, and the obvious answer is yes since poker is evil. From an Equal Protection Clause standpoint, this is a slam dunk. (And note again that the UIGIA does not treat poker players differently from non-poker players. It treats people who fund unlawful websites differently from people who don't fund unlawful websites.)

[dxu05]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... there is to be the balance that must be weighed as when approached by all supreme court decisions. The benefit of the legislation versus the destruction of the legislation. Online gaming is said to be a 13 billion dollar industry; limited to only the US we can create potential numbers of anywhere from 2 billion to 8 billion dollar industry if 40% of international gambling is from the US. In that case, the benefits of the bill must outweigh 2 billion to 8 billion dollars of interstate business that can potentially occur. The benefits as stated are money laundering, corruption of children, etc. Thus, it needs to be then proven that the effect on the lives of those who play poker is A: Negative, B: unavoidable by a better alternative, and C: worthy of a benefit greater than 2-8 billion dollars.

I find it hard to quantify A or B as a good majority of gamblers are consenting adults, B is certainly not valid since the alternative of taxing and regulation is far better. And C, is unquantifiable, in fact I doubt many qualified experts will say that the damage caused by online poker exceeds billions of dollars.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure why you think the courts must perform some sort cost/benefits analysis. They don't. Legislation can be economically unwise, or even totally foolish, and still be constitutional.


[/ QUOTE ]
In many cases there is the balance factor in which the benefits are weighed against the losses which is discussed in the judicial opinion section, thats why I would insinuate that the courts weigh the benefits and cons.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please support why you think protectionism is constitutional in between forms of gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what you're getting at. Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce.

The cases you're citing (like the Michigan landfull thing) involve state laws, not federal laws. States cannot regulate interstate commerce. Congress can.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. The cases you cite are off point. The standard is not the same. Congress only needs a legitimate purpose for this law to be constitutional. Someone has gone bankrupt before from interstate online gambling, and it might happen again, so there is a legitimate purpose (at least if the courts don't depart from their precedent).


[/ QUOTE ]
What I was getting at there was because the bill explicitly does not pre-empt any state laws, that state laws feasibly allowing online gambling are therefore no longer dealing with Congress regulating interstate commerce but rather a states rights issue. The correlation is that in the case there was a direct benefits versus gains analysis in the judicial opinion.

As for the someone has gone bankrupt online; argument can be made in the VAWA case as women have died and adversely affected interstate consumption. The VAWA law was striked unconstitutional setting moreso the precedent that there needs to be a direct economic base but not to be completely determined by Congress, but reviewed by the judicial system as well. The dissenting opinion was that Congress makes informed decisions and that they heard testimony of experts, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another perspective, under the equal protection clause, disparate treatment of online poker is irrational. People who can gamble on horses online absolutely should have the ability to gamble on poker online. There is no rational connection between banning poker and legalizing online horse gaming. This classification is unconstitutional; for example if there were a law stating that non caffeine based carbon beverages are allowed to be contained in glass bottles while caffeine based carbonated beverages are not allowed to be produced with glass bottles; this would be illegal. This is much to the same degree of poker being illegal online and horse racing being legal.

Both of these present the same societal threat/risk yet one is given completely different regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]
People get equal protection, not forms of gambling or soft drinks. If there was a legitimate reason to not bottle carbonated beverages in glass (like they explode when heated and injure people), then Congress could pass a law banning carbonated beverages in glass, while allowing non-carbonated beverages in glass. Only if there the court finds that there is no legitamate reason, would it be unconstitutional.

Poker players are not a class of people that receive equal protection. It is theoretically possible that the Supreme Court could rule that they are, but I'd bet my testicles that they won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

My contestment here is that A: there is no perceived risk between caffeine and noncaffeine drinks so the law wouldn't be constitutional. (NO LEGITIMATE REASON ARGUMENT) The argument I then have is that there is an argument to be made for the legitimacy of banning online gambling versus B&M gambling as they both have potentially the same risk. The other legitimacy issue is the allowance of horse racing online versus online poker. The idea is that there is no legitimate reason to A: Distinct between the two, and B: the consequences for both are the same.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's actually quite clearly unconstitional to anyone who actually reads the Constitution and studies the Founders' original intent, lawyer or no. It's only constitutional if you buy into the BS misinterpretations of the Constitution that our government uses on a regular basis or completely ignore original intent. Of course, as it's a lawyer's job to exploit the law for their benefit, most of them are going to respect the way our government exploits the Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are barking up the wrong tree. I support a limited reading of the Commerce Clause as much as anyone this side of Richard Epstein.

I think Gonzalez v. Raich was a brain-dead decision.

But Supreme Court precedent is Supreme Court precedent, and the UIGEA is way more constitutional -- even under a very narrow reading of the Commerce Clause -- than 95% of all federal legislation being passed these days.

It's just not realistic to challenge the UIGEA under the Commerce Clause.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument I then have is that there is an argument to be made for the legitimacy of banning online gambling versus B&M gambling as they both have potentially the same risk. The other legitimacy issue is the allowance of horse racing online versus online poker. The idea is that there is no legitimate reason to A: Distinct between the two, and B: the consequences for both are the same.

[/ QUOTE ]
You would be onto something if gamblers or poker players were a protected class. Then laws regarding gambling or poker-playing would have to be narrowly tailored to achieve their purpose.

But we are not a protected class.

Congress is perfectly free to outlaw poker without outlawing horse racing. It just needs to show that poker is evil. It does not have to show that poker is more evil than horse racing. There's no requirement that Congress's laws on the subject cannot be overinclusive or underinclusive of their purpose. They just have to have a rational basis, and the rational basis for outlawing poker is that poker is evil. Any comparison to horse racing is irrelevant.

(Not that Congress is outlawing poker. I'm speaking hypothetically. What Congress is outlawing is payments to unlawful websites.)

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's actually quite clearly unconstitional to anyone who actually reads the Constitution and studies the Founders' original intent, lawyer or no. It's only constitutional if you buy into the BS misinterpretations of the Constitution that our government uses on a regular basis or completely ignore original intent.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL you mean it is unconstitutional if one were to ignore 100 years of precedent?

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
The protectionism thing (i.e., the negative aspect of the Commerce Clause) doesn't come into play because no state makes it illegal for its citizens to play on sites hosted within the state but not to play on sites hosted outside the state. And even if a state did do this, it looks like it has Congress's specific blessing to do it under the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO this is wrong. I think banning forms of gambling which profit outside your jurisdiction while allowing other forms of gambling that benefit your State is <arguably> protectionism.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The protectionism thing (i.e., the negative aspect of the Commerce Clause) doesn't come into play because no state makes it illegal for its citizens to play on sites hosted within the state but not to play on sites hosted outside the state. And even if a state did do this, it looks like it has Congress's specific blessing to do it under the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO this is wrong. I think banning forms of gambling which profit outside your jurisdiction while allowing other forms of gambling that benefit your State is protectionism.

[/ QUOTE ]
What states are prohibited from doing under the negative aspect of the Commerce Clause (unless otherwise authorized by Congress) is treating interstate commerce differently from intrastate commerce.

Thus Michigan cannot tax Pennsylvania refuse being dumped in Michigan landfills more than it taxes Michigan refuse being dumped in Michigan landfills. And South Carolina cannot prohibit purchases of out-of-state alcohol while allowing purchases of in-state alcohol. And so on.

But Kentucky is perfectly free to outlaw poker while allowing betting on horse races. There is no Commerce Clause problem with that.

Or did you mean something else?

[dxu05]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument I then have is that there is an argument to be made for the legitimacy of banning online gambling versus B&M gambling as they both have potentially the same risk. The other legitimacy issue is the allowance of horse racing online versus online poker. The idea is that there is no legitimate reason to A: Distinct between the two, and B: the consequences for both are the same.

[/ QUOTE ]
You would be onto something if gamblers or poker players were a protected class. Then laws regarding gambling or poker-playing would have to be narrowly tailored to achieve their purpose.

But we are not a protected class.

Congress is perfectly free to outlaw poker without outlawing horse racing. It just needs to show that poker is evil. It does not have to show that poker is more evil than horse racing. There's no requirement that Congress's laws on the subject cannot be overinclusive or underinclusive of their purpose. They just have to have a rational basis, and the rational basis for outlawing poker is that poker is evil. Any comparison to horse racing is irrelevant.

(Not that Congress is outlawing poker. I'm speaking hypothetically. What Congress is outlawing is payments to unlawful websites.)

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm arguing is challenging the rational basis; the banning of online poker is irrational because of 4 different venues.

A: Poker is not rationally a more vicious animal online than in Brick and Mortar Casinos and further an argument against horse racing; there is a change in times argument to be made here in the extent of change. Courts have in many cases called upon less restrictive standards that achieve the same goals (can easily happen in online poker with regulation).

B: Poker is as much of a game of skill as any other game of skill is, argument not directly addressed in this post because this is an argument that is obvious and need not be made.

C: One would argue that the implied right to livelyhood with a moderate/liberal reading of the constitution. As such, poker being legalized online versus in gambling is a discrimination to the right of livelyhood in the same trade, different venue, same country.

D: State laws are explicitly not pre-empted and can be pursued via a states right case.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm arguing is challenging the rational basis

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck with that.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm arguing is challenging the rational basis; the banning of online poker is irrational because of 4 different venues.

A: Poker is not rationally a more vicious animal online than in Brick and Mortar Casinos and further an argument against horse racing;

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but this is the wrong comparison. It doesn't matter whether playing online poker is worse than playing poker in a B&M casino. What matters is whether playing online poker is worse than not playing online poker. If both online and live poker are bad, Congress (or a state) may choose to outlaw just one or the other. Outlawing one thing that's bad does not obligate it to outlaw everything that's bad. (If poker players were a protected class it would be different.)

[ QUOTE ]
there is a change in times argument to be made here in the extent of change. Courts have in many cases called upon less restrictive standards that achieve the same goals (can easily happen in online poker with regulation).

[/ QUOTE ]
In cases involving some form of heightened scrutiny, sure. But not in cases where the rational basis test is applied.

[ QUOTE ]
B: Poker is as much of a game of skill as any other game of skill is, argument not directly addressed in this post because this is an argument that is obvious and need not be made.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't matter. Congress (or states) are perfectly free to outlaw games of skill. The word "skill" doesn't appear in the UIGEA or in the Wire Act or in California's anti-gambling law anyway. (I'm not sure about other laws in other states.)

[ QUOTE ]
C: One would argue that the implied right to livelyhood with a moderate/liberal reading of the constitution. As such, poker being legalized online versus in gambling is a discrimination to the right of livelyhood in the same trade, different venue, same country.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's no right to play poker if Congress has a rational basis for prohibiting it. The comparison between online poker and B&M poker is irrelevant. Congress can find that one is good and the other is bad, or it can find that both are bad but choose to prohibit only one.

[ QUOTE ]
D: State laws are explicitly not pre-empted and can be pursued via a states right case.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since they are explicitly not pre-empted, there is nothing to pursue. State laws are untouched by the UIGEA.

[dxu05]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The protectionism thing (i.e., the negative aspect of the Commerce Clause) doesn't come into play because no state makes it illegal for its citizens to play on sites hosted within the state but not to play on sites hosted outside the state. And even if a state did do this, it looks like it has Congress's specific blessing to do it under the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO this is wrong. I think banning forms of gambling which profit outside your jurisdiction while allowing other forms of gambling that benefit your State is protectionism.

[/ QUOTE ]
What states are prohibited from doing under the negative aspect of the Commerce Clause (unless otherwise authorized by Congress) is treating interstate commerce differently from intrastate commerce.

Thus Michigan cannot tax Pennsylvania refuse being dumped in Michigan landfills more than it taxes Michigan refuse being dumped in Michigan landfills. And South Carolina cannot prohibit purchases of out-of-state alcohol while allowing purchases of in-state alcohol. And so on.

But Kentucky is perfectly free to outlaw poker while allowing betting on horse races. There is no Commerce Clause problem with that.

Or did you mean something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you can make the argument that both are classifications of games of chance, so you are prohibiting selective games of chance while allowing others that are apparently in the same platform of chance.

Because of the way the game of chance blurs the distinction between industry lines of poker and horseracing, the argument lies on economic protectionism of out of state games of chance for the furtherment of in state games of chance seeing as there is no distinction.

A law that outlaws milk from outside of the state is not legal because of the direct or indirect effect of giving the state companies an advantage over interstate companies. It is said that milk is legal in state, so why should it be legal out of state? Additionally, a discrimination between skim milk being allowed interstate while out of state whole milk is banned can also be legally challenged.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe you can make the argument that both are classifications of games of chance, so you are prohibiting selective games of chance while allowing others that are apparently in the same platform of chance.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can make this argument all you want, but it's simply not relevant to the Commerce Clause issues. The Commerce Clause does not require states to prohibit all games of chance or no games of chance. States can pick and choose as they see fit. The only thing they can't do (from a Commerce Clause standpoint) is to set different rules for intra-state and inter-state commerce.

[ QUOTE ]
Because of the way the game of chance blurs the distinction between industry lines of poker and horseracing, the argument lies on economic protectionism of out of state games of chance for the furtherment of in state games of chance seeing as there is no distinction.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Kentucky law treats out-of-state horse racing the same way it treats in-state horse racing, and the same goes for out-of-state versus in-state poker. There's no Commerce Clause issue here.

[ QUOTE ]
A law that outlaws milk from outside of the state is not legal because of the direct or indirect effect of giving the state companies an advantage over interstate companies. It is said that milk is legal in state, so why should it be legal out of state? Additionally, a discrimination between skim milk being allowed interstate while out of state whole milk is banned can also be legally challenged.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is correct, but it has nothing to do with poker since (a) no state has banned out-of-state poker while allowing in-state poker; and (b) even if a state did this, it appears to have Congress's blessing to do it under the UIGEA (although I have not read that provision very carefully). As soon as a state has Congress's blessing to regulate interstate Commerce, there's no Commerce Clause problem.

[dxu05]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I'm arguing is challenging the rational basis; the banning of online poker is irrational because of 4 different venues.

A: Poker is not rationally a more vicious animal online than in Brick and Mortar Casinos and further an argument against horse racing;

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but this is the wrong comparison. It doesn't matter whether playing online poker is worse than playing poker in a B&M casino. What matters is whether playing online poker is worse than not playing online poker. If both online and live poker are bad, Congress (or a state) may choose to outlaw just one or the other. Outlawing one thing that's bad does not obligate it to outlaw everything that's bad. (If poker players were a protected class it would be different.)

[ QUOTE ]
there is a change in times argument to be made here in the extent of change. Courts have in many cases called upon less restrictive standards that achieve the same goals (can easily happen in online poker with regulation).

[/ QUOTE ]
In cases involving some form of heightened scrutiny, sure. But not in cases where the rational basis test is applied.

[ QUOTE ]
B: Poker is as much of a game of skill as any other game of skill is, argument not directly addressed in this post because this is an argument that is obvious and need not be made.

[/ QUOTE ]
This doesn't matter. Congress (or states) are perfectly free to outlaw games of skill. The word "skill" doesn't appear in the UIGEA or in the Wire Act or in California's anti-gambling law anyway. (I'm not sure about other laws in other states.)

[ QUOTE ]
C: One would argue that the implied right to livelyhood with a moderate/liberal reading of the constitution. As such, poker being legalized online versus in gambling is a discrimination to the right of livelyhood in the same trade, different venue, same country.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's no right to play poker if Congress has a rational basis for prohibiting it. The comparison between online poker and B&M poker is irrelevant. Congress can find that one is good and the other is bad, or it can find that both are bad but choose to prohibit only one.

[ QUOTE ]
D: State laws are explicitly not pre-empted and can be pursued via a states right case.

[/ QUOTE ]
Since they are explicitly not pre-empted, there is nothing to pursue. State laws are untouched by the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

I argue that Morrison Vs. US sets precedent that Judicial review has the ultimate decision on rational basis more broadly read. As for Landfill vs Michigan I find it of judicial opinion that A: benefits are weighed against costs, better less restrictive laws are encouraged to achieve the same goal B: goods instate or out of state are not discriminated against, solid waste is solid waste, C: if in state or out of state waste is still waste, in state or out of state gambling is still gambling and not that we are protected, but it is precedent for nondiscrimination against the same economic product from a different state.

[dxu05]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe you can make the argument that both are classifications of games of chance, so you are prohibiting selective games of chance while allowing others that are apparently in the same platform of chance.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can make this argument all you want, but it's simply not relevant to the Commerce Clause issues. The Commerce Clause does not require states to prohibit all games of chance or no games of chance. States can pick and choose as they see fit. The only thing they can't do (from a Commerce Clause standpoint) is to set different rules for intra-state and inter-state commerce.

[ QUOTE ]
Because of the way the game of chance blurs the distinction between industry lines of poker and horseracing, the argument lies on economic protectionism of out of state games of chance for the furtherment of in state games of chance seeing as there is no distinction.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Kentucky law treats out-of-state horse racing the same way it treats in-state horse racing, and the same goes for out-of-state versus in-state poker. There's no Commerce Clause issue here.

[ QUOTE ]
A law that outlaws milk from outside of the state is not legal because of the direct or indirect effect of giving the state companies an advantage over interstate companies. It is said that milk is legal in state, so why should it be legal out of state? Additionally, a discrimination between skim milk being allowed interstate while out of state whole milk is banned can also be legally challenged.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is correct, but it has nothing to do with poker since (a) no state has banned out-of-state poker while allowing in-state poker; and (b) even if a state did this, it appears to have Congress's blessing to do it under the UIGEA (although I have not read that provision very carefully). As soon as a state has Congress's blessing to regulate interstate Commerce, there's no Commerce Clause problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you read that out of state poker that occurs in state is legal, the Wire Act has yet to be proven effective in stopping internet poker, and UIGEA does not pre-empt state law, I'm starting dxu05poker US based in the best gambling legal tax lenient state.

[Mendacious]

I think you are being too literal. For instance, if a California company started manufacturing fiberglass cars, and California had no companies which manufactured metal frame cars, California could not pass a law which banned metal framed cars without running afoul of the dormant commerce clause.

[JPFisher55]

Rational basis is that minors can easily play and lose $ online, but much more difficult for minors to play in B&M. (Although when I was 19-20, I played blackjack in Vegas, but no one checked and my parents were fairly big gamblers then mid-1970's)

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
Rational basis is that minors can easily play and lose $ online, but much more difficult for minors to play in B&M.

[/ QUOTE ] Rational basis is that minors can easily play and lose $ online, but much more difficult for minors to play in B&M.

This alone is an absolute slam dunk for rational basis scrutiny. End of discussion.

[Synergistic Explosions]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, while you and I may believe poker is a game of skill, courts have come to the opposite conclusion. Indeed, the definition used in the UIGEA - "a game subject to chance" - probably precludes the skill argument (although, as Chuck Humphrey noted, it's the best and only argument left).

[/ QUOTE ]

Online gambling is legal for only games of non-skill in our country, ie horse racing and state lotteries.

Online gambling has never been taken away from Americans. It's only being limited to games of non skill, and thats the way our government wants it.

[dxu05]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rational basis is that minors can easily play and lose $ online, but much more difficult for minors to play in B&M.

[/ QUOTE ] Rational basis is that minors can easily play and lose $ online, but much more difficult for minors to play in B&M.

This alone is an absolute slam dunk for rational basis scrutiny. End of discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

And again, I refer you to Landfill vs. Michigan case in which rational basis was a part; however less restrictive more commerce friendly practices are encouraged. As for the other rational basis, minors being able to easily play and lose $ online versus being harder in a brick and mortar casino is an unsupported argument; I refuse to believe there is yet a study to accurately measure the amount of minors that sneak into casinos versus online casinos, and then the potential new numbers for minors sneaking into online casinos after setting up certain regulations.

There is more than just minors who choose to break the law as rationalization here. Why would a vegas casino be allowed to operate as minors have the opportunity to gamble in the same way as they do online. The question isn't necessarily the accessibility, but always there is the ingrained benefit vs cost analysis. If rational bases were to be challenged and it is to be said that online poker creates no real benefit, then neither can casinos, with all the same risks and negative effects. Under such I simply find it unreasonable and I think worthy of trial, the rationality of being able to ban a legal form of commerce when physical, and make it illegal when turned into the form of wire.

Our legal courts are courts that face social pressures and realize changing times, none of the above arguments have been made, nor is there reliable source data out there to accurately judge change. The only forms of appeal we really have as US citizens for the law is our meager vote and our appeals system. There absolutely needs to be a test case for it to determine not only future online gambling rights, but future online commercial legislation, the court's opinion toward such matters, and an even greater cause of the discriminatory regulation of sister industries with the only differeng characteristic of being a modern online business.

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
And again, I refer you to Landfill vs. Michigan case in which rational basis was a part;

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, no it wasn't. The landfill case was a straight dormant commerce clause case, not a equal protection case involving the "rational basis" test. Moreover it was a State law being struck down, not a Federal law.

Please tell me you are not practicing law anywhere, because you don't know what you are talking about. You sound like a law student who is reading but not understanding the big picture at all.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
The landfill case was a straight dormant commerce clause case, not a equal protection case involving the "rational basis" test. Moreover it was a State law being struck down, not a Federal law.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is correct.

[Mr.K]

MEMO
To: Someone more tech savvy than me here in the Legislation forum
Fr: Mr. K
Date: Around midnight, 10/16/06
Re: This thread
------------------------------

Please find an animated GIF of someone beating the living [censored] out of a dead horse, and post it in this thread. Upon doing so, you will have done all of us a great favor.

Also, if you could, perhaps identify which TTT law school the OP happens to currently attend, and interview his classmates as to whether he is 1.) the worst gunner in the whole bunch; or 2.) that guy who ran his mouth so badly as a 2L summer associate that he had his offer rescinded, leading him to pretend to his peers (who hate him though he doesn't know it) that he turned the firm down, causing him to grovel for job offers that include somewhere in the ballpark of a $20,000 pay cut during his fall 3L semester.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
MEMO
To: Someone more tech savvy than me here in the Legislation forum
Fr: Mr. K
Date: Around midnight, 10/16/06
Re: This thread
------------------------------

Please find an animated GIF of someone beating the living [censored] out of a dead horse, and post it in this thread. Upon doing so, you will have done all of us a great favor.

Also, if you could, perhaps identify which TTT law school the OP happens to currently attend, and interview his classmates as to whether he is 1.) the worst gunner in the whole bunch; or 2.) that guy who ran his mouth so badly as a 2L summer associate that he had his offer rescinded, leading him to pretend to his peers (who hate him though he doesn't know it) that he turned the firm down, causing him to grovel for job offers that include somewhere in the ballpark of a $20,000 pay cut during his fall 3L semester.

[/ QUOTE ]lol classic

[whitepotatoe]

[ QUOTE ]
MEMO
To: Someone more tech savvy than me here in the Legislation forum
Fr: Mr. K
Date: Around midnight, 10/16/06
Re: This thread
------------------------------

Please find an animated GIF of someone beating the living [censored] out of a dead horse, and post it in this thread. Upon doing so, you will have done all of us a great favor.

Also, if you could, perhaps identify which TTT law school the OP happens to currently attend, and interview his classmates as to whether he is 1.) the worst gunner in the whole bunch; or 2.) that guy who ran his mouth so badly as a 2L summer associate that he had his offer rescinded, leading him to pretend to his peers (who hate him though he doesn't know it) that he turned the firm down, causing him to grovel for job offers that include somewhere in the ballpark of a $20,000 pay cut during his fall 3L semester.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL!

If this guy is a 3L, he'd better hit the barbri pretty hard!

[dxu05]

[ QUOTE ]
MEMO
To: Someone more tech savvy than me here in the Legislation forum
Fr: Mr. K
Date: Around midnight, 10/16/06
Re: This thread
------------------------------

Please find an animated GIF of someone beating the living [censored] out of a dead horse, and post it in this thread. Upon doing so, you will have done all of us a great favor.

Also, if you could, perhaps identify which TTT law school the OP happens to currently attend, and interview his classmates as to whether he is 1.) the worst gunner in the whole bunch; or 2.) that guy who ran his mouth so badly as a 2L summer associate that he had his offer rescinded, leading him to pretend to his peers (who hate him though he doesn't know it) that he turned the firm down, causing him to grovel for job offers that include somewhere in the ballpark of a $20,000 pay cut during his fall 3L semester.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mind ending this topic of discussion; before you start making your non-contributory dismissive statements, please do realize A: you probably have no business posting if you aren't adding any value, B: your opinion values little to none to me and clearly I have seen your idea of saving our valuable online poker player resources so that you can go troll, and C: Come back when you yourself are spending your time productively and actively to brainstorm ways to help the situation. I'll certainly be most open minded and willing to contribute positively.

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll certainly be most open minded and willing to contribute positively

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes..it got a little ugly, but I think what you are missing here is a lot of people who are thinking about this constructively and also want to help (and whom know what they are talking about.. and have some real world legal experience and perspective) were laying it out for you and you seemed more interested in trying to bolster your misinterpretation of the law-- that you could simply show a Court UIGEA is irrational and get it struck down as unconstitutional (sledgehammer approach)-- instead of focusing on the more subtle and complex problem of how and whether this law can be enforced given that it appears to be premised on 50 different State laws some of which MAY be protectionist.

[MiltonFriedman]

"However the court hasn't seen it that way."

LOL, however personally annoying that may be, it remains a pretty important analytic point.

It is a common danger in analysis, and it is damn tough to understand what the opposing view may be sometimes .... but it is extremely important on these issues that we do so.