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

LOL....all this arguing about this legal minutia is irrelevant

I stand by my assertion that the UIGEA is completely constitutional and that arguing it isnt is a waste of time and resources.

This is a good debate though...NH sirs

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

Some of the state laws regulating gambling as it applies to internet gambling may violate the Commerce Clause under the DCC cases. Thus under the UIGEA, breaching those laws may not be unlawful gambling.
The only problem is that one could interpret the UIGEA to provide federal approval to all these state gambling laws.
I don't see any fundamental right to gamble like free speech that would protect our right to internet gambling as the US constitution is presently interpreted by the US Supreme Court. One hundred years ago, when the view of legitimate role of government was much more restricted, I would have differed. But then the UIGEA or any similar restriction would never have been introduced in Congress 100 years ago. No one ever contested gambling laws 100 years ago because they were hardly ever enforced.

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

No, the argument is that any attempt to enforce it, based upon a State law violation would fail because the State law would be unconstitutional. (Remember, there is no Federal law making poker illegal.)

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

[ QUOTE ]
No, the argument is that any attempt to enforce it, based upon a State law violation would fail because the State law would be unconstitutional. (Remember, there is no Federal law making poker illegal.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Your claim was that the UIGEA was unconstitutional. But this argument wouldn't make the UIGEA unconstitutional, just the state law. And in any case, no court is going to find a state law unconstitutional on commerce clause grounds with such a weak case, particularly considering the blessing that the federal legislature has given to these laws.

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

You mean there is no case law where a Federal Court has found a delegation by Congress of power over interstate commerce to the States has been unconstitutional ??? I would rather look for precedents than talk about "blessings".

For starters, how about the ALA v Pataki ?? Don't you think Congress gave its "blessing" to fighting Child Porn ? Nevertheless, THAT State law regarding online publishing was struck down as a burden on interstate commerce.

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

[ QUOTE ]
You mean there is no case law where a Federal Court has found a delegation by Congress of power over interstate commerce to the States has been unconstitutional ??? I would rather look for precedents than talk about "blessings".

For starters, how about the ALA v Pataki ?? Don't you think Congress gave its "blessing" to fighting Child Porn ? Nevertheless, THAT State law regarding online publishing was struck down as a burden on interstate commerce.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I mean by "blessing" is that congressional legislation which voices approval toward a state law typically voids any dormant commerce clause issue with the law.

I can't find any citations to cases that would be free online to demonstrate this principle, but this is from the abstract to a 2004 article in the Minnesota Law Review titled "A Vision Softly Creeping: Congressional Acquiescence and the Dormant Commerce Clause":

As a general rule, Congress cannot override judicial interpretations of the Constitution merely by passing ordinary legislation. The dormant commerce clause is an important exception. Despite enjoying virtually unfettered discretion to override dormant commerce clause decisions, Congress has rarely used that power.

I don't know why you keep referring to Pataki child pornography case when as far as I can tell that has nothing to do with the federal legislation. What congressional legislation are that gave its blessing to this law?

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

The obvious point from the part of the article you quote is that congress can moot a court decision based on the DCC by simply PASSING A REGULATION LAW. The author is surprised congress doesnt do this more often.

Milton is correct here, and any Court that reviews the issue is going to see it the same way. Do Courts soemetimes reverse themselves or carve out exceptions. Yes, once in a while. But it is highly unlikely that they would do so in the poker context if they wont in the context of regulating pornography.

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

[ QUOTE ]
The obvious point from the part of the article you quote is that congress can moot a court decision based on the DCC by simply PASSING A REGULATION LAW. The author is surprised congress doesnt do this more often.

Milton is correct here, and any Court that reviews the issue is going to see it the same way. Do Courts soemetimes reverse themselves or carve out exceptions. Yes, once in a while. But it is highly unlikely that they would do so in the poker context if they wont in the context of regulating pornography.

[/ QUOTE ]

The child pornography case has nothing to do with the controlling issue here! The controlling issue is that this is federal legislation which completely obviates the any DCC concerns.

Will someone who is advocating this position please please tell me: (1) what the child pornography case has to do with the federal legislation exception to the DCC, and (2) why the UIGEA and associated state laws don't fall within the federal legislation exception to the DCC.

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

Simple Nick: the problem with the UIGEA is that it does not regulate at all; it tries to enforce state regulation of interstate commerce/internet gambling with federal penalties. Whats illegal internet gambling in Lousianna is not the same as whats illegal internet gambling in California (for example).

Congress could have passed a law banning internet gambling alltogether, or it could have created a country-wide federal regulatory scheme. Thats what the Commerce Clause requires. Congress did neither. Its not federal regulating to say "we Feds want the states to regulate this." Its a failure to do what the constitution requires.

The point of the pornography case(s) is related in that they clearly hold that individual states cannot regulate the internet. If there is to be internet regulation at all, the commerce clause, as I and Milton and others have said many times, reguires the Feds to do it.

Skallagrim

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

[ QUOTE ]
Simple Nick: the problem with the UIGEA is that it does not regulate at all; it tries to enforce state regulation of interstate commerce/internet gambling with federal penalties. Whats illegal internet gambling in Lousianna is not the same as whats illegal internet gambling in California (for example).

Congress could have passed a law banning internet gambling alltogether, or it could have created a country-wide federal regulatory scheme. Thats what the Commerce Clause requires. Congress did neither. Its not federal regulating to say "we Feds want the states to regulate this." Its a failure to do what the constitution requires.

The point of the pornography case(s) is related in that they clearly hold that individual states cannot regulate the internet. If there is to be internet regulation at all, the commerce clause, as I and Milton and others have said many times, reguires the Feds to do it.

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this argument is that Congress can enforce state laws related to interstate commerce with federal penalties. By giving its acceptance to these state law, Congress overrides all DCC concerns. That's what the federal legislation exception to the DCC does, and no one seems to want to address it.

In particular, it is fine for the Federal government to explicitly defer an issue to state regulation from a DCC perspective. There are potential constitutional issues related to federal government demanding that a state regulate, but they are unrelated to the commerce clause.

If you disagree, please cite an example of federal legislation that has been struck down under the DCC, or state legislation that was struck down as a result of related federal legislation or enforcement.