Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > General Poker Discussion > Poker Legislation
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #17  
Old 07-12-2007, 12:00 AM
MiltonFriedman MiltonFriedman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Waaay down below
Posts: 1,627
Default Re: Thanks for the information, keep in mind the function of the Regs

"So first, is it your contention that the UIGEA is vulnerable to constitutional challenge? If so, what would be the basis of that challenge, in your mind?"

What I think is not relevant really, the issue has been joined already in this litigation (to which I am neither a party nor counsel, not even a friend of the court.) The argument to make is Commerce Clause based. There is a precedent to stand on in ACLU v Gonzales, where DOJ was enjoined from enforcing the Child Porn Act. The problem is that case was also clearly a 1st Amendment case. I think these litigants are making a HUGE mistake by not joining individual plaintiffs.

You are absolutely right as to the minimal goals of the people who pushed this through. The same tactic worked with respect to marketing, to a degree. However, be clear that there IS an intent to put operators into jail if possible, by bootstrapping an obscure, unintentional state law violation into a federal case. (
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.