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

Just saw an article on Gambling 911 trying to compare the porn industry's latest legal victory based on free speech to online gambling.

I really hope people don't start using the UIGEA is unconstitutional argument because that route is a big loser.

Gambling is NOT free speech, it's commerce, and the U.S. Congress is given full power to regulate commerce in the constitution, and that's what the UIGEA does. The UIGEA is completely constitutional. There are plenty of valid arguments to use against the UIGEA and this is NOT one of them.

This is not constitutional issue, it's a legislative one and that's what needs to be focused on.

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

How is the porn industry not commerce?

Congress can use the elastic clause and extend their power to pretty much everything if they wanted to. This is why we have the courts.

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

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

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

[ 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.

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

It's a loser and a waste of time going that route

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

What a waste of time and resources this will be, I hope the PPA doesn't take this argument

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

The UIGEA is completely constitutional."

That is a very broad statement, counsel.

I agree as to the free speech argument, but explain why you discount the Dormant Commerce Clause argument, please, counsel.

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

[ QUOTE ]
The UIGEA is completely constitutional."

That is a very broad statement, counsel.

I agree as to the free speech argument, but explain why you discount the Dormant Commerce Clause argument, please, counsel.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would submit the Dormant Commerce Clause is irrelavnt in this case because the UIGEA doesn't specifically prevent states from regulating gambling.

Come on, you know there's no constitutional argument here

All I'm saying is I hope efforts are put into legislatively defeating the UIGEA

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

[ QUOTE ]
The UIGEA is completely constitutional."

That is a very broad statement, counsel.

I agree as to the free speech argument, but explain why you discount the Dormant Commerce Clause argument, please, counsel.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would the Dormant Commerce Clause ever apply to federal legislation?

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

[ QUOTE ]
I agree as to the free speech argument, but explain why you discount the Dormant Commerce Clause argument, please, counsel.

[/ QUOTE ]

because everyone else has

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

Uhmmm, it already passed, counsel. So, defeating it is kind of moot.

You also miss the point of the Dormant Commerce clause argument, which is that a state law burden on internet gaming is impermissble. In THAT area there is a line of cases about Child Porn that is relevant. The speech angle is not relevant, but the burden on commerce is. Congress can prohibit or regulate internet gaming, but delegating regulation to the State level simply won't work under the Commerce Clause.