Frank to introduce bill.....

[tangled]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This bill if passed as is brings the US further out of compliance with the WTO decision.

The WTO views the US as one country. As soon as one state allows one more form of remote gaming that they do not allow today, the entire United States is further out of compliance. The WTO agreements don't allow the US to hide behind state laws.

Furthermore, the WTO did not make distinctions between sports, poker, casino, and lotteries. Remote gaming is remote gaming. If the US offers any remote gaming anywhere in the country, they have to allow Antiguan companies to offer sports, poker, and casino to the entire US market

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you, but I didn't see anywhere that Frank was attempting to bring the US in compliance with the WTO ruling in favor of Antigua. I also think that while Frank's bill is a net positive for US gamblers, the WTO holds more promise for a return to the halcyon days. Your lead on that front is appreciated by all of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but if it did resolve the WTO problem, then that would be one more selling point it would have in its favor.

Also, I have a question: could Antigua and the US come to some sort of out-of-court settlement using this proposed law as a foundation? Maybe, some kind of compromise on the sports betting issue and the States' issue could be worked out even if this bill may never fully comply with the WTO ruling.

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This bill if passed as is brings the US further out of compliance with the WTO decision.

The WTO views the US as one country. As soon as one state allows one more form of remote gaming that they do not allow today, the entire United States is further out of compliance. The WTO agreements don't allow the US to hide behind state laws.

Furthermore, the WTO did not make distinctions between sports, poker, casino, and lotteries. Remote gaming is remote gaming. If the US offers any remote gaming anywhere in the country, they have to allow Antiguan companies to offer sports, poker, and casino to the entire US market

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you, but I didn't see anywhere that Frank was attempting to bring the US in compliance with the WTO ruling in favor of Antigua. I also think that while Frank's bill is a net positive for US gamblers, the WTO holds more promise for a return to the halcyon days. Your lead on that front is appreciated by all of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but if it did resolve the WTO problem, then that would be one more selling point it would have in its favor.

Also, I have a question: could Antigua and the US come to some sort of out-of-court settlement using this proposed law as a foundation? Maybe, some kind of compromise on the sports betting issue and the States' issue could be worked out even if this bill may never fully comply with the WTO ruling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Antigua would love to reach a negotiated settlement with the US. It could involve all of the protection in the first part of Frank's bill, and a limited number of licensees.

[Little_Luck]

The number of possible licenses shouldn't be limited. Any company that can be compliant to the standards set by the bill should be allowed to conduct business.

I don't see how the US gov't can pass something and tell the individual states that they have the choice whether they want to listen or not. I always thought federal law is above state law.

[cokehead]

[ QUOTE ]
The number of possible licenses shouldn't be limited. Any company that can be compliant to the standards set by the bill should be allowed to conduct business.

I don't see how the US gov't can pass something and tell the individual states that they have the choice whether they want to listen or not. I always thought federal law is above state law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fed law is 'above' state law. the point of the opt-out is that gambling is an area of the law that is traditionally governed by each state individually (like family law, most criminal...), so the Act would allow each state to maintain that ability.

The Act doesn't say that every American has a federal right to gamble online. if it said that, then arguably the opt-out wouldn't work.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The number of possible licenses shouldn't be limited. Any company that can be compliant to the standards set by the bill should be allowed to conduct business.

I don't see how the US gov't can pass something and tell the individual states that they have the choice whether they want to listen or not. I always thought federal law is above state law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fed law is 'above' state law. the point of the opt-out is that gambling is an area of the law that is traditionally governed by each state individually (like family law, most criminal...), so the Act would allow each state to maintain that ability.

The Act doesn't say that every American has a federal right to gamble online. if it said that, then arguably the opt-out wouldn't work.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems though that in areas that deal with foreing policy and treaties, which this does, they may not be able to allow that opt-out. But that will be a question for the courts if we are fortunate enough to have this bill pass. It would be really neat to see it pass because of the opt-out portion then have that exact portion ruled unconstitutional, but I'm a dreamer.