10th Amendment and Internet Gambling Bill

[S0meGuy]

Interesting article on the bill from the conservative commentator Walter E. Williams.

Walter E. Williams - "Truly Disgusting" - July 26, 2006

[TruePoker CEO]

Nice article, but of no value ..... I would like to see something from the Cato Institute.

"Did he once play for the White Sox, fka Walter "No-Neck" Williams ?"

[Zele]

Here's one from Cato. You may have already read it as the link has been posted a couple of times.

[Wynton]

The 10th Amendment argument is silly.

[JPFisher55]

I agree that the 10th amendment argument would not likely prevail in any federal court. This is not because it is not a good argument. I agree with Mr. Williams.
The problem is that the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, ignore the 10th amendment. They ignore a great deal of the Constitution.

[Zele]

Whoops, mine link had nothing to do with the 10th amendment. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[LinusKS]

This article article misses the big picture, and it's inaccurate.

Nothing the Federal government is trying to do supercedes any state law - in fact, the bill specifically exempts internet gambling in any state where it's legal.

Either this Williams guy doesn't know what he's talking about, or he's trying to distort the issue.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's one from Cato. You may have already read it as the link has been posted a couple of times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wynton is right -- this argument is silly. Radley Balko writes very thought provoking articles for Cato, but his ideas are seldom close enough to the mainstream of policymaking that they have any chance of actually being implemented (not that he cares, really, as far as I can tell -- so more power to him). In this instance, I think for those who oppose the bill, he offers up some trenchant points, but again, those in the decision making seats are very comfortable limiting freedoms in the name of some higher good (be it preventing terrorism, promoting safety, legislating morality, whatever). That being the case, the "nanny government" argument is dead-on-arrival, and so is the 10th Amendment issue. There is a solid, undeniable interstate commerce element to what is going on with Internet gambling. Feds 1, States 0.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a solid, undeniable interstate commerce element to what is going on with Internet gambling. Feds 1, States 0.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nevertheless, the Federal government has always recognized the rights of the states to license and regulate gambling within their borders. And this bill does not prohibit legal gambling - including legal internet gambling - any more than any other Federal laws that has gone before.

"Feds 1, States " is misleading because it implies the Feds are overriding the states. That's not what's happening. In fact, they're simply adding an additional criminal penalty to something that's already illegal in the first place.

Nothing in the bill prevents any state from licensing or authorizing internet gambling, should it decide to do so.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing in the bill prevents any state from licensing or authorizing intrastate internet gambling, should it decide to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP -- sort of. DoJ might even argue that intrastate gambling violates the Wire Act, as IP packets (an "instrumentality of commerce", for the legally inclined) from User A in a state to User B in the same state often travel outside that stuate en route to their destination. From what I heard, there is an interesting "portable gaming" initiative under study in Nevada, but I am not sure this area of the law is well defined, and certainly I don't think you have a black-and-white claim to truth on this.