Frank to introduce bill.....

[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.

[cokehead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That may be a problem, but it is the US's problem. It's a problem that they created when they signed and ratified the GATS. They can't hide behind state laws under the WTO agreements.

[/ QUOTE ]

For my own knowledge, where in the GATS does it reference this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't tell you specificallly. But I am 100% certain you can't hide behind state laws. That's why 29 AG's signed a letter that they were upset with the Antigua decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if the GATS explicitly says so, but its a general accepted principal that a country cannot hide behind its domestic laws to justify not fulfilling its treaty obligations. Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is one place to find this.

The US of course doesn't really respect this.

[Tarheel]

Jay, Coke -

My understanding was that the level of availability of certain markets to foreign suppliers was very sector dependent. That's why i was wondering what provisions were made for "internet gambling".

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That may be a problem, but it is the US's problem. It's a problem that they created when they signed and ratified the GATS. They can't hide behind state laws under the WTO agreements.

[/ QUOTE ]

For my own knowledge, where in the GATS does it reference this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't tell you specificallly. But I am 100% certain you can't hide behind state laws. That's why 29 AG's signed a letter that they were upset with the Antigua decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure if the GATS explicitly says so, but its a general accepted principal that a country cannot hide behind its domestic laws to justify not fulfilling its treaty obligations. Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is one place to find this.

The US of course doesn't really respect this.

[/ QUOTE ]

But doesn't the constitution provide that only the federal goventment can enter and withdraw from treaties? So one could possibly argue that the opt-out portion could not be applied to on line gambling that fell under the auspices of a treaty, since they would then be unconstitutionally withdrawing from a treaty.

[BradleyT]

THe PPA guy is on cnbc right now

[Coy_Roy]

[ QUOTE ]
THe PPA guy is on cnbc right now

[/ QUOTE ]

Which PPA guy?

[Jay Cohen]

[ QUOTE ]
Jay, Coke -

My understanding was that the level of availability of certain markets to foreign suppliers was very sector dependent. That's why i was wondering what provisions were made for "internet gambling".

[/ QUOTE ]

The WTO panels found that the US made commitments for remote gambling under section 10d of its schedule. They placed no limits on it.

[schwza]

i am a man with a phone. direct me. i live in mass, but not in franks's district (somerville).

also, is there a chance this is going to pass?

[dougmanct]

I predict that this bill will absolutely pass both houses of Congress.

I base this prediction on one metric - but this one metric is so amazing to me, unprecedented in its result - that I HAVE to think it will reflect the mood and response both parties will hear regarding this bill.

I've always held that the most dyed-in-the-wool, completely psycho, overthetop batshit insane crazy right-wing fundamentalists in the entire universe all read and post to freerepublic.com. These sort of lunatics would be the LAST PEOPLE IN THE UNIVERSE you would expect to EVER support the idea of "regulated online gambling".

Yet, if one does a search on their forum for the recent discussion of Barney's Bill, you tend to jaw-drop at the OVERWHELMING amount of SUPPORTIVE response this bill receieved - at the MECCA of ultra-psycho-right-wing-world! These are the people who literally believe Barney Frank is demonic and should burn in hell...yet dozens of the "freeper" faithful are openly admitting that they, as much as it pains them, AGREE with Barney Frank!

Anyone that doesn't think today's congressfolks and senators don't look at the sentiments of the blogosphere if for no other reason than curiousity is nuts.

If the most hardcore of the fundies think this bill is the right way to go, I HAVE to think that the overwhelming majority of feedback every legislator is going to hear about this is going to be positive - and just like a TV show battling for survival, I think bills tend to pass when they experience an "unexpected" surge in voter interest.

Cliffs Notes: I predict legislators will not expect to hear anything from the people about this bill, and be shocked at the volume of correspondence they get - and it will be almost all positive. This bill passes both houses in this session of congress.

I refuse to predict how the President will act, however.

[beaster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


So i assume the 11 states that Prima has locked out would prevent players from playing on licensed sites as well, and who knows how many others.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a big problem.......

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what would suck...this bill passes and then 39 of the 50 states can now play poker online legally. The other 11 get shut out, including sites they can play on now. (I'm in NY and can play at FTP, Stars, UB, Absolute).

Although other than Prima saying online gambling is illegal in NY, I can't find any laws saying as much. I think it might have to do with some cases in 2002 or 2003 where (now Governor) Spitzer went after operations based in NY but had servers in Antigua. I'm hoping Prima is just being hyper-cautious.