Will ban end Internet gambling? Don�t bet on it

**jetset** · 15th October 2006, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by imcasual

There's something intrinsically wrong with our Constitution that would allow a totally unrelated matter to sleaze its way in like a Trojan horse, for the Prez' blessing.

Apparently this backdoor legislating is quite common in Congress - there's an excellent and disparaging article about the process (which apparently has a name - it's called Christmas Tree-ing!) by Declan McCullagh at C-Net

Slipping tech laws in via the back door | Perspectives | CNET News.com

**Cynthia777** · 15th October 2006, 05:01 PM

Thanks, Dominique for that link on State laws concerning gambling (this is the perfect resource.. been looking for something like that for a while)

But some of the states provisions really seem a little "off the wall"...

(3) Michigan has exceptions for Senior citizens homes and state fairs.

... couldn't that be interpreted as "age discrimination"??

**Cynthia777** · 15th October 2006, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by jetset

Apparently this backdoor legislating is quite common in Congress - there's an excellent and disparaging article about the process (which apparently has a name - it's called Christmas Tree-ing!) by Declan McCullagh at C-Net

Slipping tech laws in via the back door | Perspectives | CNET News.com

I can see why so many President's have tried to get the "Line-Item Veto" enacted/enforced. This practice comes short of taking a bribe, IMO, (we'll give you this as long as you agree to this). A little ironic that the Supreme Court declares line-item veto unconstitutional. I noticed in his speech before signing, even Bush did not speak of the online gambling provisions attached, probably because he (or his speech writers anyway) may have even seen it as ludicrous to talk about an "irrelevant" matter when discussing the important one of Port security.

But, with some media the way it is, how would it have looked when the headlines would have read "Bush Vetos SAFE PORT Act"?? It seems to be a catch 22. But it really is the job of the reviewing committees and those on the Floor to throw these provisions/amendments out before it even gets presented to the President. Only upper hand that Frist had was that this got submitted at such a hectic, busy, and vulnerable time when Congress was in session past midnight...but, to me..that's not an excuse.

**AussieDave** · 15th October 2006, 05:30 PM

Frist's supposed to be under investigation for insider trading & other dubious scallywag acts connected to (vegas B&M) casino shares, is he not?

**tennis_balls** · 15th October 2006, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by jetset

Apparently this backdoor legislating is quite common in Congress

in theory this way of getting a bill passed would allow parties to make deals and help break up stalemates. of course, in reality this practice is abused to no end.

Mark Foley was a master at backdoor legislating.