This is getting out of hand

[dickens1298]

If you really wish to combat such legislation, you really need to rally public support. Claiming that our civil rights are being trampled or painting some sort of Orwellian picture wouldn't do to muster such support - heck, if you're having difficulties getting support HERE, imagine gathering support among the NON-gaming community.

If you peruse the news articles, the media seems concerned about the following vis-a-vis online gambling:

(1) the increase in gambling addictions
(2) under-age gambling
(3) the lack of regulation leading to possible involvement by organized crime

You can pooh-pooh such concerns all you want, but these concerns become adopted by the public at large. And since it is the support of the public you would need (would any legislator really care that the operator of an online gaming site is complaining about her legislation? One squeaky wheel does not a constituency make), addressing those concerns would be my main line of attack.

You may also want to heed the anti-smoking laws before tackling civil rights. The premise of the public good overriding individual freedoms lie at the core of that issue, and its success - witness the fact that smoking is outlawed within any building in California - shows that legislators ARE willing to "trample" individual rights if they feel that the public is threatened. You may scoff at the ethos of that, but keep in mind that your right to gamble - or smoke, for that matter - is not assured ANYWHERE in the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Tdoggy]

money

What it comes down to is money. The gov't is tired of sitting back and not collecting. Can we say Tax!!! The gov't wants their cut.

Yeah the gov't tried to bank drinking once upon a time...but who got involved and made a fortune "organized crime"

I can't see how the gov't would want to do away with such a profitable business. I can see them taxing it for sure though

But if you tax online casinos do you then tax land casinos??? Even if you win small amounts???

 

[sarahlynn59]

Well as we all know if the government can not profit in anyway from it, then why should we be able to enjoy it.

Our government needs to take a hard look at the preditors they set free on the streets that continually attack our children and scour the internet for victims. These people are forbidden from using the web for such practice. WHO IS WATCHING THEM????

My granddaughter was a victim and it took months of hounding the various law officials before we finally had an arrest and conviction.

Wise up Washington online gambling is the least of your worries.....Try protecting our children from senseless crime before you worry about me depsoiting MY OWN CASH in an online casino.....

 

[Linus]

Every legal casino in the US is licensed by the state where it's located. It pays income taxes on its income, property taxes on its real property, and employs local people - who in turn pay taxes themselves.

Those taxes go to pay for things like roads, courts, schools, and national defense.

Casinos also pay for the licenses themselves - the licenses that make them legal in the first place. Those licenses - as well as state regulatory authorities - help ensure that customers won't get ripped off and that the games will be fair.

If you want to argue that internet gambling should be legal in the US - which it's not, and never has been - you need to answer this question:

Why should The PepperMill or the MGM Grand - US companies who employ Americans and pay US taxes - have to obtain licenses, but not foreign-owned companies in Gibraltar, or Antigua?

 

[Linus]

Also, Renegade, there's a difference between speaking about something, and promoting it. Just something to think about.

 

[lots0]

but keep in mind that your right to gamble - or smoke, for that matter - is not assured ANYWHERE in the U.S. Constitution.

Your totally wrong. Have you ever read the Constitution?

Amendment IX to the Constitution of the United States.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

From The Declaration of Independence.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”


If playing a few hands of poker or gambling makes me happy and I am not hurting anyone (like second hand smoke does)... Then the government should keep its damn nose out of it and that is in the Constitution...

 

[Awai]

until fairly recently you had to pay a tax in a betting shop in the UK when you placed your bet - you could choose to pay it at the time or have it deducted from your winnings. either way that situation has been reversed and it certainly hasnt lead to a host of people battering down the doors to place their weekly earnings on the nags.

Of course there will always be people who push the mark further than everyone else and sadly that will always have concequences be it good or bad. But banning something because of the unfortunate minority seems very heavy handed. The subject of this thread worries me slightly with the pressure applied, specifically in washington, beginning to sound like the "state running peoples lives". And thats something i hoped i'd never see or hear of...

 

[dickens1298]

Your totally wrong. Have you ever read the Constitution?

Amendment IX to the Constitution of the United States.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

From The Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


If playing a few hands of poker or gambling makes me happy and I am not hurting anyone (like second hand smoke does)... Then the government should keep its damn nose out of it and that is in the Constitution...

Perhaps you ought to check Constitutional law again.

First off, the Declaration of Independence is NOT the Constitution. The latter is the law of the land - the former was actually drafted over a decade before the Constitution was even ratified.

Secondly, Amendment IX notes the "enumeration" of certain Constitutional rights as not conflicting with "others" retained by the people. This can be read to mean that an amendment is binding insofar as that it does not abridge the Constitutional rights of others.

And THOSE rights - the rights you claim include your right to smoke and gamble - are NOT specified. As for the sanctity of your so-called rights, you may want to remember that Prohibition was passed as a Constitutional amendment, and was removed NOT because a court judged the amendment unconstitutional (or in violation of Amendment IX), but due to a subsequent amendment.

If Amendment IX is generally construed to mean what you claim, then the right to drink would also fall under that category, rendering the Prohibition Amendment null and void.

 

[lots0]

Secondly, Amendment IX notes the "enumeration" of certain Constitutional rights as not conflicting with "others" retained by the people. This can be read to mean that an amendment is binding insofar as that it does not abridge the Constitutional rights of others.

It can also be read to mean that Rights not listed in the Constitution are still retained by the people. I do believe that is the way most ‘experts’ read it. So just because the Right to Gamble is not listed in the Constitution does not mean the Right in question is not guaranteed.

And THOSE rights - the rights you claim include your right to smoke and gamble.

You should re-read what I wrote. I never said anything about smoking being a ‘Right’. Smoking hurts people other than those that smoke, no one has the right to hurt others.

Prohibition was passed as a Constitutional amendment, and was removed NOT because a court judged the amendment unconstitutional (or in violation of Amendment IX), but due to a subsequent amendment.

The Courts can not remove or change a Constitutional Amendment. It is impossible for the courts to make something ‘un-Constitutional’ when it is in fact in the Constitution. The Courts have no say over that, never have, so your argument is moot.

In retrospect, most all Constitutional ‘experts’ believe that Prohibition was against the letter and spirit of the Constitution, that is one reason why they have not tried to make a Constitutional Amendment to make some drugs or Gambling illegal.

It always amazes me how some people use the Constitution to try to take away freedoms and Liberties from the people, when in fact it is there to guarantee those freedoms to the people and restrict the actions of Government.

 

[dickens1298]

It can also be read to mean that Rights not listed in the Constitution are still retained by the people. I do believe that is the way most experts read it. So just because the Right to Gamble is not listed in the Constitution does not mean the Right in question is not guaranteed.

You should re-read what I wrote. I never said anything about smoking being a Right. Smoking hurts people other than those that smoke, no one has the right to hurt others.

The Courts can not remove or change a Constitutional Amendment. It is impossible for the courts to make something un-Constitutional when it is in fact in the Constitution. The Courts have no say over that, never have, so your argument is moot.

In retrospect, most all Constitutional experts believe that Prohibition was against the letter and spirit of the Constitution, that is one reason why they have not tried to make a Constitutional Amendment to make some drugs or Gambling illegal.

It always amazes me how some people use the Constitution to try to take away freedoms and Liberties from the people, when in fact it is there to guarantee those freedoms to the people and restrict the actions of Government.

Could you kindly direct me to those experts who believe that Prohibition was against the spirit of the Constitution? I'd like to see that for myself.

As for the courts' role, my point was that the Prohibition Amendment was not contested on the grounds that it violated Amendment IX, which should have rendered it void since it violated individual rights, in this case the right to drink.

As for online gaming - I am not using the Constitution as an excuse to ban online gaming, but I dislike alarmists who raise a hue and cry that we are approaching a totalitarian state merely because the government wishes to eliminate it. These online gaming supporters would prefer to attack the government and/or the legislation, instead of identifying weaknesses and/or possible rationales for such a government ban (eg concerns over money laundering, underage gambling, gambling addiction).

 

[lots0]

Could you kindly direct me to those experts who believe that Prohibition was against the spirit of the Constitution? I'd like to see that for myself.

Harvard Law Review

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

These online gaming supporters would prefer to attack the government and/or the legislation, instead of identifying weaknesses and/or possible rationales for such a government ban (eg concerns over money laundering, underage gambling, gambling addiction).

I think you forgot to mention the other side of the coin, the benefits of legalizing and regulating online gambling, things like jobs, taxes collected and a boost the economic factors and a reduction in the trade deficit.

Sounds to me like you just want to discuss why online gambling should be 'outlawed' and not reasons why it should be legal and regulated.

The same arguments that are used against the online casinos now have been heard for ages by the ground based casinos... Most all of the arguments have been beaten to death over the years. Most of the evils of gambling that are so feared by people that want to outlaw online casinos have been delt with by the ground based casinos and have not been proven to be as evil as predicted, even after hundreds of years of ground based casinos.

 

[dickens1298]

Harvard Law Review

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

I think you forgot to mention the other side of the coin, the benefits of legalizing and regulating online gambling, things like jobs, taxes collected and a boost the economic factors and a reduction in the trade deficit.

Sounds to me like you just want to discuss why online gambling should be 'outlawed' and not reasons why it should be legal and regulated.

The same arguments that are used against the online casinos now have been heard for ages by the ground based casinos... Most all of the arguments have been beaten to death over the years. Most of the evils of gambling that are so feared by people that want to outlaw online casinos have been delt with by the ground based casinos and have not been proven to be as evil as predicted, even after hundreds of years of ground based casinos.

No mention of the Prohibition in your referenced document - so I'd still love to see the legal opinions you had noted earlier.

As for my stance regarding online gaming, posters like yourself and Renegade can label me whatever you wish (ironic to claim that I am against online gaming, since I play at various online casinos myself), and speak of whatever rights are being trampled upon, but until the lightning rod issues that the legislators are purporting are the reasons to outlaw online gambling are addressed, there is more of a chance of such legislation being passed than not.

The bottom line is that this has been coming - and everyone knew it. Most credit card companies disallow online casino transactions because of this gray area, and the major casinos have shied away from the online gaming market for the same reason(s). Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if such legislation DOES pass.

So - my question to you is - what would you do? Continue to harp about your rights being violated, and hope for the best should online gamers begin to be prosecuted (which is unlikely, however...)?

My suggestion is simple - find the reasons why the legislators would want such a law to be passed, and address those concerns. It may not avert the inevitable, but it's certainly a worthwhile approach...

 

[lots0]

So - my question to you is - what would you do? Continue to harp about your rights being violated...

You better believe it. I am going to yell and scream from the roof tops, till I live in a world where you can do what you want and I can do what I want, as long as we don’t hurt anyone doing it. Of course I do believe I will die long before that happens.

My suggestion is simple...

And not viable.
When Chicken Little is running around the barn yard, yelling and screaming that the sky is falling, its perdy hard to stop em and try to convince em that the sky is in fact not falling, but that some bird really just craped on his head.

The same thing with the online casino biz, all the ‘Concerns’ of those that want to outlaw online gambling are the very same concerns that the people who wanted to outlaw ground based casinos voiced... Money Laundering, Prostitution, Drugs, Drag Queens, Elvis Impersonator Invasion, Herpes, Gay Marriage and Organized Crime etc.

These are all non-issues, if the biz is Regulated... Just to prove my point, look what has happened with the ground based casinos. All those so called ‘issues’ never really came to become problems (all except for the Elvis Impersonators and Drag Queens... ).

In other words, there are other reasons why online gambling is being targeted than the ones you and others keep repeating... So addressing the problems you site is like trying to stop Chicken Little and telling him the sky is not falling...

Want to know what I think.... I think.... all the Native Casino Money in the pockets of the Sponsor and Co-sponsors of this bill might be the ‘real’ reason this bill has gotten as far as it has and if the money keeps flowing and the Repubs still feel the need to show everyone how ‘Moral’ they are (and they do), this bill is a sure bet to pass in the House. Thats what I think.

 

[lots0]

No mention of the Prohibition in your referenced document

“Statutory Speech Bubbles, First Amendment Overbreadth, and Improper Legislative Purpose”

I think what your looking for is in the “Improper Legislative Purpose” section.

 

[dickens1298]

Statutory Speech Bubbles, First Amendment Overbreadth, and Improper Legislative Purpose

I think what your looking for is in the Improper Legislative Purpose section.

Actually, the "Improper Legislative Purpose" section addresses the use of the First Amendment to test suspicions about illicit government purpose. The Prohibition Amendment was never alluded to in the document.

 

[dickens1298]

You better believe it. I am going to yell and scream from the roof tops, till I live in a world where you can do what you want and I can do what I want, as long as we dont hurt anyone doing it. Of course I do believe I will die long before that happens.

And not viable.
When Chicken Little is running around the barn yard, yelling and screaming that the sky is falling, its perdy hard to stop em and try to convince em that the sky is in fact not falling, but that some bird really just craped on his head.

The same thing with the online casino biz, all the Concerns of those that want to outlaw online gambling are the very same concerns that the people who wanted to outlaw ground based casinos voiced... Money Laundering, Prostitution, Drugs, Drag Queens, Elvis Impersonator Invasion, Herpes, Gay Marriage and Organized Crime etc.

These are all non-issues, if the biz is Regulated... Just to prove my point, look what has happened with the ground based casinos. All those so called issues never really came to become problems (all except for the Elvis Impersonators and Drag Queens... ).

In other words, there are other reasons why online gambling is being targeted than the ones you and others keep repeating... So addressing the problems you site is like trying to stop Chicken Little and telling him the sky is not falling...

Want to know what I think.... I think.... all the Native Casino Money in the pockets of the Sponsor and Co-sponsors of this bill might be the real reason this bill has gotten as far as it has and if the money keeps flowing and the Repubs still feel the need to show everyone how Moral they are (and they do), this bill is a sure bet to pass in the House. Thats what I think.[/QUOTE

The legislation is going to pass. Why? Not enough people care to protest it. And those who DO care would rather talk again and again about civil rights issues - and not realize that their talking points are not being heard.

 

[pacers31]

yep, it's gonna pass the house, and all we can do is hope that the senate doesn't follow suit, or they run out of time in this session of congress. If the morality police have their way, all us gamers will probably have to have a giant "G" sewn onto our clothes to identify us as gamblers!! They wouldn't want to do something really useful like figure a way out of the lousy war or helping our own citizens out here, that would be too "compassionate" for these conservatives!

 

[lots0]

...and not realize that their talking points are not being heard.

Ya it is rather hard for our elected officals to hear a few talking points about civil liberties when Native American Casinos are filling their pockets with money...

In American politics, money talks LOUD...

 

[Auditor]

More unreal stuff out of Washington State this weekend:
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid)

 

[Renegade]

I've been reading and will only make a few comments.

I saw a comment about guns, something to the effect of when they start taking away our guns.....

Ummm, they have been taking away our guns for awhile now. Why do you think 90% of all laws are Felonys????
Because if someone is convicted of a felony, they lose The Right To Keep and Bare Arms.

If this bill passes, All bank accounts of every american will be monitored.
I hear O' they can't monitor that....If they couldn't, it wouldn't be in the bill.

Just as all internet activity will be monitored. Every website that someone visits, you will be watched.

And if they think you are a gambler, your phones will be tapped.

For those that believe that they can't do this, for whatever reason, It's time to wake up and smell the coffee.
They can do it, and they WILL DO IT.

 

[Chatmaster]

Renegade, I believe you are spot on.

The main concern here is the access to privacy by government. This is to be regarded as a VERY serious step into a wrong direction for the entire internet community. There are some HUGE privacy issues. Essentially this gives legal access to things government already have access to. That is the only logical assumption one can make! It is also an international issue not just for the US people! They are completely ignoring the WTO still! Nothing has happened. This is a cheap shot at getting some legal access on infringing on peoples privacy.

If this had anything to do with the protection of the US citizens they would have opt for legalizing and controling it. Now once again they are pushing it underground! If and I say once again If! they had good intentions I am sorry to say then we have a more serious problem here. Then it means there are reps in the HR that are of very low intelect!

 

[Renegade]

The sad truth is, it's not for the benefit OF THE PEOPLE.
It's another form of control.

How many people have that Onstar thing in their cars??????
Do they really believe that the Onstar helps them?????
That is just another way for them to know where you are at all times.

Onstar can start your car, ever stop to think that if they ever wanted you they could also turn your car off?????

What about that great ploy about finger printing your children????
Do you honestly believe that fingerprinting an 18 month old is going to help them find that child if the child is missing????

Hell no, it's another means to control. Now they have your children's finger prints.

Sad....People really are gullible.

How many know of history???
When everyone in France, with the exception of the elite, was thrown into prison???
Everyone was in prison before France finally woke up and smelt the coffee.
This did not happened once, but TWICE!!!!!

Wake up and smell the coffee.

The Internet was suppose to be the one place where people of the world could come together and meet without fear of governments.
Now the (USA) government wants control of it.
They want to know where you are going, what you are doing, what your children are doing, what your spending your money on, who your talking too, what your writting, and if a household visits a site deemed to be illegal by the powers that be, look out, because the entire household is now red flagged and tagged.

And Oh, remember when the teachers and the schools was telling the children that if they see their parents doing something illegal, the children was to report it to the school????

Food for thought.