Here we go....

[top6]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
as soon as I typed that, I knew someone was going to say Lopez, but that was an anamoly, and as you said, clearly not applicable here.

[/ QUOTE ]sorry, i sort of had a flashback to law school. i was sort of being a gunner there, and i apologize. i did not like those people in law school.

[/ QUOTE ]

no problem, in any event, i am sure we both agree that this bill implicates interstate commerce more than many laws that have been passed under the guise of commerce.

[/ QUOTE ]Clearly. There is no absolutely no way that a Court would strike it down on Constitutional grounds, absent open corruption. Furthermore, I would not want a Court do so, as I would not want to live in a country where the Courts could overturn such laws (even though I dearly love internet gambling).

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
Would probably be cool if this forum had a sticky with some sorta up to date info on the Internet Gambling Bill, maybe with a sample letter or what would be most effective to say on the phone to our senators. Maybe one of the more knowledgable politicos could write it.

I know I'm being lazy, but there are a lot of lazy people who don't visit this forum a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeh, we went over that a few months ago during tax season. I know 2+2 mods had some concerns over it appearing like the company was taking a particular stance or givining certain advice. I think it was more angled to tax legality and potential implications, but I lost track.

[DMACM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2p2ers need to realize that we're a tiny, tiny minority with most of the country united against us.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pretty egregious mischaraterization. If anything, the vast majority of people just don't really care about internet gambling. "United against us" Come on.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you took a vote of the general population, we wouldn't have a prayer, and it's not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really think? I get the impression that most people are pretty indifferent to the whole matter, but I could be way off.

[/ QUOTE ]

You arent way off TeddyFBI said something foolish and didnt retract it for ego reasons. Polls show that most people dont support a ban of online gambling so does common sense.

[Uglyowl]

I am liking the Libertarian Party more and more each day

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/printer_671.shtml

Although this article is 3 years old, I like their thinking

[the_rookie]

Does C-Span replay these sessions throughout the day? Or does anyone know where i can watch it online?

[renodoc]

Chris or Berge are the authorities on this, all my knowledge only comes from watching "Meet the Press". [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

The Senate has to start from scratch, their bill has nothing to do with the House bill.

[/ QUOTE ]


Uh, the bill passed the House. Doesn't it just go to the Senate now as HR4411 for their consideration? Why would you think there has to be a new senate bill???

[smoove]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
as soon as I typed that, I knew someone was going to say Lopez, but that was an anamoly, and as you said, clearly not applicable here.

[/ QUOTE ]sorry, i sort of had a flashback to law school. i was sort of being a gunner there, and i apologize. i did not like those people in law school.

[/ QUOTE ]

I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] gunners.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Chris or Berge are the authorities on this, all my knowledge only comes from watching "Meet the Press". [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

The Senate has to start from scratch, their bill has nothing to do with the House bill.

[/ QUOTE ]


Uh, the bill passed the House. Doesn't it just go to the Senate now as HR4411 for their consideration? Why would you think there has to be a new senate bill???

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just the way it works. "Meet the Press" has been pretty instructive on points like this!

The Senate is a separate entity from the house. A Senate Bill naturally has to be drafted and introduced by a Senator, and then make it out of committee. While I guess it's theoretically possible just to copy the House bill, introduce it, and tell the committee "Don't change a thing!", I don't think this happens in practice.

[mpslg]

[ QUOTE ]
if it passes the senate, whats the chances of bush signing it?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the first quote I've seen from the white house: "The White House's Office of Management and Budget said Tuesday that it supported the House's vote, but that it had "some concerns" about the bill. OMB's statement didn't elaborate on what those concerns might be."

link

Maybe those "concerns" will slow down the Senate, if we're lucky.

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Chris or Berge are the authorities on this, all my knowledge only comes from watching "Meet the Press". [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

The Senate has to start from scratch, their bill has nothing to do with the House bill.

[/ QUOTE ]


Uh, the bill passed the House. Doesn't it just go to the Senate now as HR4411 for their consideration? Why would you think there has to be a new senate bill???

[/ QUOTE ]

That's just the way it works. "Meet the Press" has been pretty instructive on points like this!

The Senate is a separate entity from the house. A Senate Bill naturally has to be drafted and introduced by a Senator, and then make it out of committee. While I guess it's theoretically possible just to copy the House bill, introduce it, and tell the committee "Don't change a thing!", I don't think this happens in practice.

[/ QUOTE ]

It actually does in a surprising number of cases. I'd have to go back and see what Senator Kyle has introduced in the past and how it relates to House versions, but I believe it was the same to either the prior Leach or Goodlatte versions.

Don't discount this possiblity