[MiltonFriedman]

I think you are feigning an ignorance which is beneath you. That is a disappointment. You ain't Socrates.

I referred you to the ACLU v Gonzales caselaw which is on point as to how the Federal Act cannot simply trod on peoples' rights in State B because State A law provides a different measure of what those rights are for State A residents. The measure of such State A rights in cyberspace is discussed, as is the need for less intrusive legislation.(I am not saying what the standard will be among possible reviews by the Court, but pointing out that precedent does exist for determining the proper way to balance rights among citizens of differing States when they intersect in cyberspace.)

To address your point directly, I nowhere said the hypothetical site was in Mo.

In any event, why would a site's location offshore make illegal its otherwise lawful conduct ?* Being foreign does not make a business unlawful, ever buy a foreign automobile / The location of the poker site is irrelevant under UIGE Act, especially if a site is located and licensed to conduct its business legally from say the UK or Costa Rica, Antigua or the Isle of Mann. If there is no federal ban on poker sites, and we are assuming arguendo State B allows players to play, what is "unlawful" ?

What is chilled is the availability of services, including banking services, to conduct that lawful activity. Congress used a meat-ax, a scapel was required to protect whatever "legitimate state interest" may underly the enacted prohibition.

* The WTO case involves that premise, that discrimination on nation origin cannot be legal under that trade agreement. Just wait until some of the other trade agreement litigation picks up steam, under GATT and other agreements.