Class Action

[arbitrary]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the problem is that the constitution outlines rights and gambling is not mentioned as a right.

There fore can we not lobby for an amendment to the constitution to say that gambling is a right?

[/ QUOTE ]

We're much more likely to succeed in attempting to get the law repealed next congress (extremely unlikely) or in trying to make a publicity case to the Department of the Treasury (which will make the rules themselves). Neither is likely to work in the short term.

I've read about 100 threads claiming that this law is "unconstitutional."

"I don't like this law" or "It's unfair" != UNCONSTITIONAL

I realize that not many of you have legal training, but you can read the constitution in about 5 minutes. All of your personal rights are contained in the amendments, so if you're in a hurry, read those.

As for a constitutional amendment: forget it. Since the bill of rights was passed (it was essentially agreed upon during the constitutional convention)there have only been 17 amendments total in more than 210 years. You can discount 2 of them, since one simply repeals the other (prohibition). We couldn't get an amendment prohibiting equal rights for women, so don't expect one for internet poker.

==arbitrary

[Performify]

[ QUOTE ]
We couldn't get an amendment prohibiting equal rights for women, so don't expect one for internet poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Freudian? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Freerollin`]

[ QUOTE ]
There could possibly be an equal protection argument. The government is certainly treating similarly situated indivuduals differently. The question becomes whether they have a rational basis for doing so, and most likely they could find one.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, when did you fail out of law school?

[rubbrband]

You guys are looking in the wrong area. This bill isn't designed to stop anyone from gambling or even gambling online(online lottery still legal). This law is designed to prevent your ability to trade with other countries. This is the right being violated.

[scorer]

Im no lawyer, however, it was never legal in the first place. Second, they will claim that since the USA has no oversite and no taxes thats its illegal activity and you have no rights to this income. Third, this is powerfull, they claim this can lead to funneling money to terrorism etc and we see the power of this via the war and the patriot act. Looks like you/we would have no chance.

[ihardlyknowher]

Yep, I doubt online poker players are a protected class.

[Vern]

[ QUOTE ]
Yep, I doubt online poker players are a protected class.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well if Rep Bachus is correct, we are all addicts, which is an illness. You cannot discriminate against someone based on an illness. Actually, if you want to qualify for extra federal funding for college, go to a doctor and tell them you have a drinking problem. Kids show up at AA meetings just to get federal funding for college open only to alcoholics. Apparently gambling addicts need the alcohol addicts' lobbiests.

[PokerintheI]

[ QUOTE ]
Um, yes you can, you just have to be able to show it violates some "right" or is "unfair" in a way that violates your "rights" They are not class action suits however.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, from what I remember from my Public Policy school days, the only possible protection for Internet gambling you are going to find is the same one that Roe vs Wade is based upon and that is the implied right to privacy.

Summed up, the implied right to privacy says that the government needs to stay the hell out of our affairs unless it has some need to limit or proscribe an activity for the public good. (its been a long time since my constitutional law classes, so this is probably not 100% accurate wording)

[ QUOTE ]
You guys are looking in the wrong area. This bill isn't designed to stop anyone from gambling or even gambling online(online lottery still legal). This law is designed to prevent your ability to trade with other countries. This is the right being violated.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is however a relativly recent Supreme Court ruling that might have some impact on this issue though. In Michigan it was a law that you could have Michigan wineries ship you cases of wine but out of state wineries could not. The S.C. held that it was unlawful for the state to permit in-state companies to do something that out-of-state companies could not.

On the national level it does not seem to be a huge stretch to say that the federal government can not restrict citizens from patronizing one business located outside of the country when it permits people to purchase the same goods and services provided by a USA company. And this is particularly relevant when the US government has treaties garunteeing free trade.

This is in fact the argument that some companies are useing in a lawsuit against the US governemnt in the WTO.

[Panzer IV]

Any of you wanna-be-junior-constitutional lawyers ever heard of the concepts of standing or controversy ripe for judicial resolution? Hmmm. But if anyone actually targeted by the legislation is desperate enough to try to challenge its constitutionality (no chance) I am sure they are comforted to know that they have 25 degenerates prepared to submit an inarticulate and poorly reasoned amicus brief.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
There is however a relativly recent Supreme Court ruling that might have some impact on this issue though. In Michigan it was a law that you could have Michigan wineries ship you cases of wine but out of state wineries could not. The S.C. held that it was unlawful for the state to permit in-state companies to do something that out-of-state companies could not.

On the national level it does not seem to be a huge stretch to say that the federal government can not restrict citizens from patronizing one business located outside of the country when it permits people to purchase the same goods and services provided by a USA company.

[/ QUOTE ]
Those are entirely seperate issues. The commerce clause provides that Congress has the power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce. An implication of this is that states do not have the power to regulate interstate commerce -- so Michigan therefore cannot restrict out-of-state wines more than it restricts in-state wines.

Since Congress has the power to regulate foreign commerce, however, it has full constitutional authority to prohibit foreign gambling websites while allowing domestic ones.

(Whether this violates a trade pact or treaty is another matter, but has nothing to do with the Michigan wineries scenario.)