Online Gambling Industry Could See Relief with Suit Against Gonzalez

[Skallagrim]

Just to be clear, it is illegal under some state laws to play poker in your own home. Washington and Louisiana of course make it a felony to play online in your own home. States like South Carolina and Tennessee make it illegal to play poker for money in your own home under any circumstances (and there are a few others).

My point was simply that it has been a long time since a court has recognized the "privacy of your own home" as a constitutional right in any context other than search warrants (which also explains why its harder to arrest people for in home activities).

The last Court I know of to do it was the Alaska Supreme Court when they held you could grow and smoke pot in your own home under the ALASKA Constitution's right to privacy.

That principle should apply to online poker too, I agree, but courts generally dont.

Skallagrim

[Legislurker]

For privacy in the home there was the striking down a couple years ago of the Texas anti-sodomy law. Freedom with your genitals and orafices and freedom with your money seem to be on a commensurate level to me.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
But it is a basic rule that a properly ratified treaty trumps any passed law (except the constitution itself), so the WTO thing has life, its just hard to say exactly where that ends up (i.e., if we agree to pay the penalties per the treaty are we breaking the treaty? - does that mean all gambling or just horse racing; things like that. It is settled that we are breaking the treaty though).


[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a treaty that says one thing, and the Senate later passes a bill that conflicts with the treaty, the Court's will generally apply the statute and reason that the Senate meant to nullify the treaty.

[MiltonFriedman]

.... however, hooking is largely illegal in the US, even if it is "out-call".

[TheJokerIsWild]

While I certainly like their agenda, it sounds like a pretty stupid lawsuit. Unless the article is leaving out other legal grounds, their argument is simply..."this law interferes with our freedom and we don't like it." How many laws are there that don't do that? In order to overturn an enacted statute, you must prove that it is unconstitutional -- either on its face, or as applied. Well, it hasn't been applied yet, so that leaves the "on its face" analysis. This statute is not unconstitutional on its face. Congress has the power to regulate/control/direct interstate commerce. There are several seminal interstate commerce cases proving that the courts allow Congress apply an extremely broad brush in "regulating" interstate commerce. For instance, discrimination is illegal under federal law simply because virtually every employer, lodging establishment, etc utilize instrumentalities of interstate commerce (ie. US mail, telephones, various products and services from other states). The same argument is used to allow a federal prohibition on the use, distribution, or sale of narcotics. Both of these prohibitions infringe on personal freedoms. For example, a KKK member would complain that a prohibition on discrimination prevents him from running his business in conformity with his personal beliefs. A recreational drug user's freedom of choice to place a particular substance in his body is infringed by US drug laws. A pedophile is not allowed to pursue his sexual preferences by way of pornographic material because of Congress' right to regulate interstate commerce. Morality is legislated all the time. So how the hell is this argument going to work??? Are these people on drugs? Unless there is something else in the Complaint that isn't mentioned in this article, I predict this lawsuit will be dismissed almost immediately by way of demurrer, a motion to dismiss, or by summary judgment within the next 8-10 months, or sooner.

[Sniper]

Website coming soon... http://imega.org/

This is a newly formed organization, and it will be interesting to see who is really behind this action. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Grasshopp3r]

All this needs is an activist judge that is willing to kick some sand on Kyl and the moralists and issue a TRO.

I am amazed that Nevada has not pushed into internet gaming and tried to carve it out for themselves.

[MiltonFriedman]

"Unless there is something else in the Complaint that isn't mentioned in this article,"

Take a look at the ACLU v. Gonzales case, DOJ was enjoined from enforcing the federal statute against children access to porn. The reason was that a website and content legally offered over the Internet for viewers in some states might be illegal in others. The burden on the interstate businesses offering the services was overly heavy because of uncertainty and the availability of such things as age verification, which Congress ignored.

This seems the best argument here, at least for poker, but not for sportsbetting.

It is not that Congress cannot regulate interstate commerce, it is the half-assed way it has chosen to do so ... by subjecting businesses and consumers whose activity is legal in some states to a defacto ban on their financial transactions.

Clearly, geographic screen would have been less intrusive.

(I think a Motion to Dismiss will be filed a lot sooner than 8 months. If there are some "legal" activities impacted, the suit has some chance. I'd say about 20%, depending upon where it is/was filed.)

[MiltonFriedman]

"I am amazed that Nevada has not pushed into internet gaming and tried to carve it out for themselves."

What do you think the Frank bill is ? Read it and tell me it is not precisely a Nevada push, aided by the PPA ?