State Law and the Unlawful Online Gambling Act

[Patriot76]

New article at Card Player

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news...lass=PokerNews

I see one HUGE mistake/misconception blaring out at me. She states "There is also a federal constitution that all citizens of the United States must follow. (The federal Constitution and the U.S. Constitution mean the same thing.) We are each subject to both the laws of our state and federal laws."

WRONG!!! I am uncertain about State Constitutions, but the U.S. Constitution does NOT tell the people what they can or cannot do. It tells the GOVERNMENT what it can and cannot do. END OF STORY. Why do you think certain ammemdments begin with "CONgress shall make NO law..." (If they had of just stopped right there we all would be alot better off!)

[Phil153]

Well, she finally covered one of the most important issues which she completely missed in her last "analysis". But again, she misses the point.

[ QUOTE ]
In sum, the 2006 Enforcement Act does make it a felony...but since all gaming sites are located outside of the jurisdiction of the United States, this portion of the law is, in all practical terms, unenforceable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, so US law is unenforceable in "all practical terms". That's why the government has never arrested a foreign sportsbook executive for breaking the Wire Act.

Crap like this is exactly why I never read Cardplayer. Her analysis of the legal issues is obviously correct, but she completely fails to understand their practical effects (just as she completely failed to address the important issue of state laws in her last article).

Bottom line: if you want informed opinion, don't read Card Player.

[TruePoker CEO]

"Bottom line: if you want informed opinion, don't read Card Player."

I doubt that Phil and I will agree on much else, but I would not rely on CardPlayer for informed analysis. It is pretty much a random hit or miss in their legal columns. There are many more informed and literate legal counsel available to the magazine to cover important topics like these. It is a shame they publish these vanity pieces instead.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
New article at Card Player

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news...lass=PokerNews

I see one HUGE mistake/misconception blaring out at me. She states "There is also a federal constitution that all citizens of the United States must follow. (The federal Constitution and the U.S. Constitution mean the same thing.) We are each subject to both the laws of our state and federal laws."

WRONG!!! I am uncertain about State Constitutions, but the U.S. Constitution does NOT tell the people what they can or cannot do. It tells the GOVERNMENT what it can and cannot do. END OF STORY. Why do you think certain ammemdments begin with "CONgress shall make NO law..." (If they had of just stopped right there we all would be alot better off!)

[/ QUOTE ]

Not the end of story. The constitution gives the federal gov. all kinds of power to tell people what they can and cannot do. Read Gonzales v. Raich.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

Not the end of story. The constitution gives the federal gov. all kinds of power to tell people what they can and cannot do. Read Gonzales v. Raich.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the Supreme Court gives them that power through willful misinterpretation of the Constitution. Thomas was the only Justice who ruled correctly.

[Colonel Kataffy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Not the end of story. The constitution gives the federal gov. all kinds of power to tell people what they can and cannot do. Read Gonzales v. Raich.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the Supreme Court gives them that power through willful misinterpretation of the Constitution. Thomas was the only Justice who ruled correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I absolutely agree with you about Thomas being correct. I picked this case precisely because it expands the Federal Gov. power over the states and individuals to such an absurd extent.

Nevertheless, they did rule that way. They decided that the Constitution gives the Federal Gov. that power, and they were the majority, so...sucks for you, me, and thomas.

[Self Made]

Shulman doesn't answer my basic question: can the feds use a state law to declare something "unlawful Internet gambling," and enforce regs based on it? Is it legal for the feds to enforce a state law?

Note that practically speaking this means they'd probably be applying one state's law to the entire nation (unless banks are going to be sorting transactions by state and applying different standards to them).

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Shulman doesn't answer my basic question: can the feds use a state law to declare something "unlawful Internet gambling," and enforce regs based on it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Is it legal for the feds to enforce a state law?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

[Patriot76]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Not the end of story. The constitution gives the federal gov. all kinds of power to tell people what they can and cannot do. Read Gonzales v. Raich.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the Supreme Court gives them that power through willful misinterpretation of the Constitution. Thomas was the only Justice who ruled correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you Alex. My feelings exactly. Just because something had been ruled on and a precident has been set does not mean that is not in error.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
In sum, the 2006 Enforcement Act does make it a felony for an owner or operator of a site to accept money for gambling where it is already illegal (ie Washington), but since all gaming sites are located outside of the jurisdiction of the United States, this portion of the law is, in all practical terms, unenforceable.


[/ QUOTE ]

She claims the law is unenforceable while completely ignoring that part of the bill expressly designed to enforce it. That is the prohibition against Transfer of Funds to such sites "located outside of the jurisdiction of the United States". Ms Shulman is just not credible.

PairTheBoard