Christopher Shays replies to HR2046

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if it were true about amending the Wire Act, laws should be specific, not just laws that say basically "oh, if we think it's illegal, we will let you know." No you won't. You are OUR public servants. If something needs to be prohibited, there will be a compelling reason why, and that should have to be the extent of your prohibition. His statement just illustrates to me how the government and its administrators have gotten TOO powerful and big. We need a smaller government that will mind its own fricking business.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe gambling is inherently dishonest and am opposed to it in any form.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a stupid thing to say.

Poker is primarily about exploiting others' mistakes, not dishonesty. And even in games where you bluff, everyone knows that - going in - successful dishonesty is how you win. That's the fun in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that it is a stupid and hypocritical thing for him to say, when he gambles everyday of his life. Life is a gamble, getting in a car is a gamble, crossing the street is a gamble, tithing at your church is a gamble, etc. This is why I really despise that my Christian brothers and sisters have taken up this cause.

[CPOSteve]

[ QUOTE ]
But Shays is known as a liberal Republican; not a social conservative one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, and therein lies the challenge of getting UIGEA overturned or legislation legalizing on-line poker passed. The idea that banning Internet gambling only appeals to the religious right is quite simply wrong. I live in Maryland where the democrats overwhelmingly control the legislature. They have repeatedly defeated slots on the basis of keeping me from harming myself by losing money.

This is the challenge. On the one side you have those who think that gambling is a sin and on the other are those who want to protect me from myself. These two groups combined form an overwhelming majority of both houses of Congress.

The legislative route is only going to be a winner if enough people can be convinced that a) the government can make a significant amount of money from on-line poker via increased tax receipts and licensing fees of some kind (and this is a tough one because the rake from poker is going to pale in comparison to the take from a lottery, for example)and b) the sites have a rock solid way to prevent minors from playing.

Steve

P.S. Let me make it clear that I think on-line gambling should be legal, just trying to make sure our expectations are realistic.

[Emperor]

[ QUOTE ]

P.S. Let me make it clear that I think on-line gambling should be legal, just trying to make sure our expectations are realistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Expecting a limited government, constrained by the specifically expressed powers given to that government by its Constitution, SHOULD be a realistic expectation.

Just because the majority of politicians feel differently, is not an excuse undermine the rule of law set forth by the framers.

[CPOSteve]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

P.S. Let me make it clear that I think on-line gambling should be legal, just trying to make sure our expectations are realistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Expecting a limited government, constrained by the specifically expressed powers given to that government by its Constitution, SHOULD be a realistic expectation.

Just because the majority of politicians feel differently, is not an excuse undermine the rule of law set forth by the framers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to understand what you are arguing.

The framers gave all powers not enumerated to the states which is why many states ban gambling in some or all forms within their borders while the federal gambling laws are few and far between (The Wire Act being an exception).
The framers also expressly gave Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce.
Given the circumstance that the individual states have widely varying rules about gambling and that the internet undeniably results in members of those states all meeting in one "place" to gamble thus generating profits for a corporation thus making this act at least plausibly one of interstate commerce, I don't understand why you would think that this type of legislation wouldn't be exactly the type of thing that the framers thought Congress should weigh in on.

I guess what I'm saying is that, while I agree that the framers agreed to a Constitution that provided for limited government I don't think this means they were as libertarian as I am. I think it means that they intended for the federal government to be limited to those things that impacted the nation as a whole (interstate commerce) while the state governments took care of "local" issues.

[JPFisher55]

The fourteenth amendment applies the Bill of Rights and inherent rights in the Constitution to the States. Thus, if online gaming and online poker are protected by some right in the Constitution, then States cannot necessarily ban or restrict it.
The courts have applied a balancing test of the individual right under the Constitution versus the State reason in limiting the right. Any limitation must be narrowly tailored to justify the State reason for its limitation.
How narrow and how much limitation depends on how strong the right being limited is under the Constitution.
I don't think any federal court has decided these matter for online gaming or online poker.

[Cactus Jack]

Doesn't CT have a lottery? His state is sure protecting those who can least afford to lose money, huh? Not to mention that rather large building in Ledyard.

Cat's out of the bag, brother. Better find another way to protect the youth.

[CPOSteve]

14th amendment, yes you're correct. Of course, this doesn't apply to

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

because we'd have a serious circular reasoning problem.

I'm sure someone will tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any federal court has ruled a state gambling law to be unconstitutional because it construed gambling as a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. In other words, if it's constitutional for the state of Maryland to ban casino gambling then why would the fact that the gambling takes place on-line make a difference?

As an aside, someone mentioned in one of the lawsuit threads that the question of whether the Wire Act governs all forms of gambling or just sports betting has not been finally resolved. The unintended consequence of the recent civil suit in New Jersey is that it may give the government the opportunity to argue the issue before the Supreme Court. Given the current make-up of the court this may not be the best thing for us. I'd much rather have the fate of on-line poker rest in Congress, which is electable/can be lobbied/is known to change their minds, than with the courts where if you lose you may not get another bite at the apple.

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In my judgement, Internet gambling should be regulated the same way as traditional forms of gambling, as was recommended by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Illegal acts should be prohibited wherever they occurr -- including cyberspace -- and society clearly has the right to prevent cyberspace from being used for illegal purposes."

[/ QUOTE ]

SO VOTE FOR IT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I didn't get this at all. He says he wouldn't vote for the bill, yet he thinks internet gambling (why does he capitalize "Internet"?) should be regulated?

[PokeReader]

CT has a lottery and two indian casinos. Chris is a Christian Scientist, and I would think this is influencing his thinking here. I have heard from him that he has been moving away from his religion lately, but I am sure this is a factor.

I believe the comparision we need to make with poker is the stock market. Very similar system of winners and losers, just a significant difference with a graded increased in earnings over time, and that most people do not managed their own investments. However, in the short term, it can be a very similar model.

As to targeting Chris or other Congressional candidates, please check my post in the main legislation sticky where this letter was originally posted.

[questions]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that it is a stupid and hypocritical thing for him to say, when he gambles everyday of his life. Life is a gamble, getting in a car is a gamble, crossing the street is a gamble, tithing at your church is a gamble, etc. This is why I really despise that my Christian brothers and sisters have taken up this cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, exactly, that's what I was trying to say.

As an American, you have only a 50% chance of succeeding at marriage. As a player holding aces, you have about a 90% chance of succeeding at winning the pot. Ironic that they'll attack the "sure thing" as inconsistent with their values and "defend" that which is high risk.