Re: What about a Dormant commerce clause argument, address that please
 

Milton,

Now you just need to find a district court judge, an appropriate number of appeals court judges, and 5 Supreme Court justices that wouldn't laugh a DCC argument out of court.

Re: What about a Dormant commerce clause argument, address that please.
 

It spplies to State legislation. Sometimes, despite what Congress CAN do, it cannot necessarily delegate the same power to the States. An example are Child Porn state laws which have been struck down. Subjecting a business to a multitude of varying State laws can violate the commerce clause.

Re: What about a Dormant commerce clause argument, address that please
 

.... not to mention a willing or unwilling Defendant AND a DOJ which will actually bring a case on, unlike the Casino City Press line.

New York seems like it would be a good place to argue this. Care to volunteer as defendant ?

Re: What about a Dormant commerce clause argument, address that please
 

Why wouldn't the Patacki child porn law case (from New York) reasoning apply ?

As the US District Court recognized when striking down the NY censorship law in American Library Ass'n v. Pataki, the Internet is much like the railroad system, because it is used to transport speech and information all over the country. (See, it's like a "series of tubes" ... hey, if that's what it takes to win, I am all for the analogy.)

The New York law, like similar state laws, violated the Commerce Clause because it would have required a Texan who posts a web page or message to abide by New York standards, even if no one from New York ever saw the page or read the post.

The court in ALA v. Pataki held that internet users must be protected from "inconsistent legislation that, taken to its most extreme, could paralyze development of the Internet altogether."

The quote is from some ACLU website.

see also American
Booksellers Found., 342 F.3d at 104 (predicting that “the internet will soon be seen as falling within
the class of subjects that are protected from state regulation because they ‘imperatively demand a
single uniform rule.’”); Johnson, 194 F.3d at 1162 (agreeing with Pataki that state regulation would
lead to inconsistent regulations, and therefore only Congress should regulate the internet).

Re: The \"UIGEA is unconstitutional\" argument is a loser
 

"None of the anti-porn laws deal with commerce, they deal with free speech'

This is simply flat out wrong. They sometimes deal with interstate commerce in materials;

As the court recognized when striking down the NY censorship law in ALA v. Pataki, the Internet is much like the railroad system, because it is used to transport speech and information all over the country. The New York law, like similar state laws, violated the Commerce Clause because it would have required a Texan who posts a web page or message to abide by New York standards, even if no one from New York ever saw the page or read the post.

The court in A[merian Library Assn] v. Pataki held that internet users must be protected from "inconsistent legislation that, taken to its most extreme, could paralyze development of the Internet altogether."

(I happen to agre that interstategaming is NOT a free speech area, but please do not ignore interstate commerce law cases which may be relevant.)

Re: What about a Dormant commerce clause argument, address that please.
 

[ QUOTE ]
It spplies to State legislation. Sometimes, despite what Congress CAN do, it cannot necessarily delegate the same power to the States. An example are Child Porn state laws which have been struck down. Subjecting a business to a multitude of varying State laws can violate the commerce clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand...the UIGEA is federal legislation, not state legislation. How are you arguing it is unconstitutional under the dormant commerce clause? Has federal legislation ever been struck down under the dormant commerce clause? It seems like it can't by definition.

Re: The \"UIGEA is unconstitutional\" argument is a loser
 

Milton is right here folks, as has been discussed before.

And Adanthar, since the courts have been willing to use the Dormant Commerce Clause to strike down INTERNET CHILD PORNOGRAPHY laws, why on earth do think they wouldnt take a poker case seriously? Is online Poker worse than kidde porn (which, by the way, is also not protected by the first amendment)?

Congress failed to engage in national regulation of internet gambling when it passed the UIGEA, instead deferring to individual state law. While its possible that the courts would say gambling is so unique it was okay for congress to do this, it would be the first such exemption to traditional commerce clause reasoning. Highly unlikely IMO.

Skallagrim

Re: What about a Dormant commerce clause argument, address that please
 

[ QUOTE ]
It spplies to State legislation. Sometimes, despite what Congress CAN do, it cannot necessarily delegate the same power to the States. An example are Child Porn state laws which have been struck down. Subjecting a business to a multitude of varying State laws can violate the commerce clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, but doesn't UIGEA or whatever just impose a federal regulation on transactions? At least, that's the part we care about. So I don't see how that would apply, unless they have outsourced that regulation to the states, which isn't the case.

Re: What about a Dormant commerce clause argument, address that please
 

The Feds have absolutely outsourced regulation to the states under the UIGEA. Except for sportsbetting, where there is an actual federal law (the wire act), the UIGEA specifically says to look to state law for what is or is not "unlawful internet gambling." Becasue of this it is hardly "pie in the sky" to believe a Court would strike down the UIGEA under the DCC as to everything but sportsbetting.

Re: The \"UIGEA is unconstitutional\" argument is a loser
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any argument has the potential to be successful. How flag burning is free speech is beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]

The day that a law is passed outlawing flag burning would be the day that I burn my first flag.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. I've been saying this for years, and everybody looks at me like I'm a communist. Of course you can burn the American flag in America -- because we are free to express our political beliefs, period. I will not burn a flag, out of respect, but I would the day you tell me I'm no longer free to do so. At that point, the flag is just a mockery of itself, like the Soviet constitution. And of course, this is the purest form of political speech there is.