Antigua press conference re: WTO Monday

[Ignignokt]

[ QUOTE ]
The one doing the signing just received a 33% approval rating from Newsweek. I don't think he will want to piss of any of his few remaining supporters if they let it be know to him how they feel.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you think he got down to 33% in the first place?

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what happens when the WTO brings down the fire and brimstone on the USA? Can they repeal the i gaming law?

[/ QUOTE ]
The WTO has no power to repeal a US law. I think all the WTO can do is authorize Antigua to retaliate with trade sanctions. Any trade sanctions by Antigua will hurt them more than they hurt the USA. Right now, no other country can retaliate for the US's violation of WTO. Other countries (like the UK or EU) can bring the same allegations and presumably will be able to retaliate, but not until a case is brought, heard, appealed, and affirmed (which would take years).

The US faces no threat of immediate harm from the Antigua case and this administration has shown that it doesn't care about international opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no lawman, but couldn't Antigua sue through the US courts? According to the US constitution laws are illegal and unconstitutional if they break treaties. Wouldn't this qualify? Couldn't Antigua sue? and if they can, they will, and they will win.

[Aardhart]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So what happens when the WTO brings down the fire and brimstone on the USA? Can they repeal the i gaming law?

[/ QUOTE ]
The WTO has no power to repeal a US law. I think all the WTO can do is authorize Antigua to retaliate with trade sanctions. Any trade sanctions by Antigua will hurt them more than they hurt the USA. Right now, no other country can retaliate for the US's violation of WTO. Other countries (like the UK or EU) can bring the same allegations and presumably will be able to retaliate, but not until a case is brought, heard, appealed, and affirmed (which would take years).

The US faces no threat of immediate harm from the Antigua case and this administration has shown that it doesn't care about international opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no lawman, but couldn't Antigua sue through the US courts? According to the US constitution laws are illegal and unconstitutional if they break treaties. Wouldn't this qualify? Couldn't Antigua sue? and if they can, they will, and they will win.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to do research on this, but I don't think so. I don't think anyone can sue under a treaty if there are no other laws to sue under. (Can anyone say otherwise? Or give examples of suits in US courts?)

Even if someone could normally sue under a treaty (which I don't think they can), suits under the WTO would probably not be allowed because the WTO has its own dispute resolution mechanism. Antigua will likely be allowed to levy trade sanctions, but if they do so it will hurt them more than it will hurt the US.

EDIT
[ QUOTE ]
According to the US constitution laws are illegal and unconstitutional if they break treaties.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? What part of the Constitution?
EDIT: I think you mean STATE laws are superceded by federal laws, including treaties. I think there are diverging precedent in this area, but I don't think there is anything close to being on point for this case. Again, I'm not going to do research.

[tinhat]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm no lawman, but couldn't Antigua sue through the US courts?

[/ QUOTE ]

What would be their argument - "We made buckets of cash on illegal U.S. gambling but now we don't"?

[iron81]

Results:

[ QUOTE ]
Antigua’s legal representative in its WTO Internet gambling dispute with the US, Mark Mendel, has indicated that, for a variety of reasons, the panel’s review of US legislation, originally expected to be completed in a three month period, has been delayed. Mendel expressed the opinion that the panel’s decision is now unlikely to be given before January or February of 2007.

[/ QUOTE ]
Link

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[Richas]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm no lawman, but couldn't Antigua sue through the US courts?

[/ QUOTE ]

What would be their argument - "We made buckets of cash on illegal U.S. gambling but now we don't"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Essentially yes. Also that the Bricks and Mortar casinos are a $30bn dollar business and that this is just protectionism for them. That the exemptions for state lotteries, horse racing and Indian reservation jackpots prove that this is not a moral issue, it is just protectionism.

The strongest argument is that the WTO has already found that the Wire Act and others are protectionist and yet the legislators response has been to pass a law that expressly does not amend these just enforces them. This is the most blatant WTO breach ever with the senate effectively giving WTO the finger. The good news is that the act helps quantify the damages done to foreign firms so the sanctions can be bigger.