An Analysis of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006

[Kurn]

Say one State were to legalize internet gambling. Would that call into question the constitutionality of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006? Wouldn't that bring both the Interstate Commerce and Full Faith and Credit clauses into play?

[Quint]

[Reel Deal]

I love this quote from the article:

"Frank Catania, former director of gaming enforcement in New Jersey and president of Catania Consulting Group, calls the law "a sham" that won't stop online betting in the U.S. "There are so many alternate means of payment that it is not going to stop what is happening here," says Catania. "We are going to be spending a lot of money for enforcement, and it is going to be worthless." Enforcing the act will cost about $2 million between 2007 and 2011, according to a May 26 Congressional Budget Office report."

Way to go Bill... all you're doing is costing us money for no good reason! Fucking idiot.

Edit: one other thing to point out here... if the Congressoinal Budget Office is only tagging $2M for enforcement over a 5 year period, that's peanuts and shows that they have no intention of seriously enforcing this Act.

[drewjax]

The more I read about this, the more I think this is true. IMO, they are truly just using this as a run around to eventually legalize/regulate/tax all of this. Idiots should just have some stones and do it now. They seem to do whatever the F they want anyway.

[Penguinfan]

Wishful thinking. The far right Christain moral zealots kicked our ass on this one, plain and simple.

Chad Hill who works for Jim Dobson and Focus on The Family admits they have been trying for 7 years to get some form of legislation against internet gambling on the books and it's believed he had a hand in helping write the Kyle bill that got the ball rolling most recently.



"We've been pushing for seven years now," Hills said, "to get anything through Congress that would restrict or prohibit Internet gambling from reaching into living rooms and homes across the nation."

It was a vote heard 'round the world, he added.

"Internet gambling operations around the globe are stunned," Hills said. "Shareholders are pulling their money and online gambling stocks are plummeting all the way from Antigua to Costa Rica to the United Kingdom. Two of the UK's largest online-gambling entities are canceling all U.S. operations. For the time being, Internet gambling in the U.S. is dead."


While they have come up short of all he is implying, make no mistake about who the problem is. If you think Frist isn't playing to this crowd to secure votes in the 08 election you simply aren't paying attention.

[Kurn]

While I agree with you on Frist's (and Goodlatte's and Kyl's) motivation, that narrow view doesn't explain away the moderates and liberals who are on board with this. it certainly doesn't explain why 60% of House Democrats voted for it.

There's a lot of different forces at play here. The Christian Right is one, for sure, the Nanny-State Left is another, the "I'm struggling for re-election and this looks good" group is a 3rd, and those who see the dollar signs if they can somehow manipulate the process to bring this $12B industry onshore are a 4th

[Penguinfan]

Since this was attached to the Port Security bill anyone voting against it would have appeared soft on terrorism, not something you can afford a month before elections.

[drewjax]

Simply not paying attention huh. OK

I think my point was that is exactly what Frist is trying to do. He is out front as the champion of this cause, trying to get votes from the conservative (voting) majority. However, as has already been stated, if they plan on spending $2 mil. over 5 years to enforce this, they aren't going to enforce much. Then when he is president (in his mind), they come up with "This isnt working", and legalize/regulate/tax all of this.

Simple. Opinion.

[Penguinfan]

That honestly wasn't directed at you specifically, more to the masses, sorry if it came across that way.

I do think you are reaching with that thought process though, if Frist knows he needs those votes to get elected, he couldn't turn his back on them and expect to get re-elected four years later.

[Reel Deal]

Kurn, I'm not sure I understand your question.

The Full Faith and Credit clause has to do with one state honoring a judicial decision of another state (ie, a party who loses a case in Florida generally may not relitigate the case in Georgia; the Georgia courts are bound by the Florida ruling). Not sure how that could bring up the constitutionality of this Act.

The Commerce Clause gives the federal government the right to preempt any state laws that regulate interstate commerce. Per this clause any matter relating to interstate commerce is in the exclusive domain of the federal government. Having said that, the clause does allow Congress to permit state regulations that would otherwise violate the Commerce Clause (e.g., allow them to come up with their own laws regulating on-line gambling). So, again, I'm not sure how this clause could be used as a means to declare the Act as being unconstitutional.

Perhaps you have some examples you're thinking of?

[Kurn]

No. You answered the question. They don't apply.

[Reel Deal]

If I was going to go after this law from the perspective of it being unconstitutional, I would attack it for being too vague. You might also be able to attack it for procedural flaws.

[Kurn]

I don't think that works. The Constitution itself is vague in many points. But that's a different discussion.

[Reel Deal]

Lots of statutes get struck down for vagueness and I think this one would be a good candidate, it is very poorly written.