[top6]

[ QUOTE ]
The law is most likely justified under commerce clause powers.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your post for the most part could have ended here. This is precisely why the law won't be overturned by a court.

[ QUOTE ]
The gambling sites are overseas, and even if they were based state-side there would be many interstate wagers, so it fits very easily under this category, far better than a lot of things justified under the CC.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct.

[ QUOTE ]
Courts are going to apply a rational basis test when reviewing this legislation if challenged.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think a court will ever be in a position to hear this argument. There is no way a court would ever buy this argument; and in the very unlikely event that one did it would certainly be overturned on appeal.

[ QUOTE ]
This means the government need only show a rational basis for enacting the law. Two things to know about this: 1) It doesn't need to be rational and 2) it doesn't need to be the basis for the law. Very deferential. The courts won't (or shouldn't, based on the caselaw) delve into heavy fact-finding to see if the claims are in fact correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely correct. Again, this wouldn't be a very serious argument

[ QUOTE ]
Ex: People gamble online, they lose money to overseas companies, and thus are less likely to spend money travelling around the country or purchasing goods and services that move around among the states. Good enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

A court is not some sort of super legislature with the power to overturn laws because they are wrong or misguided; provided those laws are Constitutional. You understand this, but I want to spell it out for other posters who haven't had the benefit of Con Law.

[ QUOTE ]
Or, more likely, interstate wagers ARE commerce. Also good.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why the law is Constitutional.

[ QUOTE ]
Now they just need to show that it has some rational relation to commerce, which I think is pretty easy. I don't think they need to go farther and say anything about, say, protecting the children. The court wouldn't look too much at underinclusive/overinclusive, or whether it even does the job very well ("narrowly tailored", for example).

[/ QUOTE ]
Bingo.

[ QUOTE ]
One could argue that there is a substantative due process right to gamble or spend money as one sees fit. Yeah, not gonna work. The state has always regulated gambling in one form or another, there is no way the courts will declare that the state no longer has power to regulate/ban such activity.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. I don't know why posters think internet gambling is so different than the "live" gambling that was banned for years.

[ QUOTE ]
Then there might be some WTO/international trade agreements. This is where my knowledge falls from scant to nonexistent (international trade is next semester). People mentioned a case before involving Barbados or some such island.

[/ QUOTE ]
My knowledge is as limited as yours in this area, but my understanding is that a U.S. court could not overturn a law on this basis. (I think there is a case that prevents courts from overturning laws on the basis that they violate a treaty, but I could be wrong.) HOWEVER, a poster in the other thread made the very good point that the fact that this law violates international law could lead the Bush administration to try to change the law (or stop it from passing - I don't think they would actually veto it though).

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't read the whole thread, so someone can take it from here, as well as adding to/correcting my post.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am just adding my 2 cents. I am not an expert by any means. However, I am pretty confident that the courts will not overturn this bill, and we should not pin our hopes there.