Skip to comments.Since When Does Federalism Contain an Exemption for Internet Gaming?
Posted on 03/26/2014 11:14:40 AM PDT by 54fighting
As states like New Jersey, where it is now legal, and Massachusetts, where there is a move to legalize online gaming, Adelson is convinced that online gambling competes with his brick-and-mortar poker rooms. To this end, he is calling on the Congress, and specifically his Republican friends, to outlaw his competition.
The ask has put Republicans in a precarious situation where they are forced to choose between philosophical principles, like federalism, and their opposition to crony capitalism against the obligation to hear out and support Adelson.
Texas Gov. J. Richard Rick Perry, for instance, was once one of the leading voices for federalism. But, he appeared to be balancing other priorities when he released his March 24 letter asking Congress to restrict his own state from emulating what New Jersey and others have done or are doing.
The jury was still out when in 2011, Conor Friedersdorf called Perry a Tenth Amendment turncoat in The Atlantic. Now we see the verdict vindicates Friedersdorf.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
You know, this story has got me thinking about another article to write how the internet is both the biggest friend of, and the biggest threat to, Federalism.
Think about it ..I’m a big believer in the Federal system (meaning Federalism, NOT a big Fed govt) and states rights, the Tenth Amendment, etc ..and the “interwebs” can cut both ways in these discussions.
Thanks for posting..
Internet gaming crosses state lines.
But I’d support an amendment to give the Feds unambiguous authority to regulate internet gambling.
Perry’s always been a hack.
I’m no fan of gambling and don’t believe it to be a great economic driver (see Detroit) but couldn’t care less if fools want to throw their money away.
Man, these questions are always so backwards in their presumptions. I have to assume they do that on purpose. Where the hell does federalism presume a ban on internet gaming? That’s just stupid.
“Internet gaming crosses state lines.”
Fine, so let the Feds handle any interstate disputes that arise from that fact, and butt the heck out otherwise. Whether it crosses state lines or not, they still need an enumerated power to actually ban it.
(Yes, I know the courts disagree, but the courts are wrong and have been for a long time)
Not necessary. They already regulate interstate commerce via the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The Feds have all the power they need. Let’s not grant them even more.
Not necessarily. There are many horse betting sites, for instance, that only permit residents of states that permit online horse wagering with state-licensed wagering sites to actually wager online.
I suppose it is circumvented easily enough but the same is true of any interstate commerce regs. I can’t legally play at a casino in my state but nothing stops me from legally gambling at casinos in other states.
A federal law banning online gaming is the same as a federal law shutting down casinos nationwide, IMO. If states want to permit it to their residents, let them. If the government (federal or state) wants to tell me how I can best spend my money... well, that is why I am a conservative. I’ll decide that for myself, whether it is blowing it on online poker or investing it in a start-up company that sells contact lenses for cats.
The purpose of the “interstate commerce” clause was to allow the fedgov the authority to step in if a dispute between states was irreconcilable.
Otherwise, they were to butt out.
As for the gaming, if one state doesn’t allow it and another does, if they can work out a deal between their legislatures, the fedgov doesn’t have a role.
What "obligation" to support Adelson? I rank this to be the same as a local bookstore demanding that Congress outlaw Amazon.com to cut down on his competitor. If you want to gamble, I don't see any reason why the federales should have anything to do with controlling a private vice.
How can one use an EBT card for on-line gambling? (not a serious question)
My gambling experience is quite limited; the occaisional lotto ticket when the jackpot gets up there and once stayed in hotel that had a casino in Beloxi. The slots bored me to tears in about 5 minutes, didn’t unterstand most of the table games, etc. The free beer was nice but I probably tipped as much as the beer would have cost me at the store.
But I can see many people losing a lot of money sitting at home in their underwear. At least with a casino you have to make some effort to get there.
I think ultimately it’s going to happen, unless some miracle first changes the inclination of America as a whole with respect to destructive habits. There’s a point where the school of hard knocks says okay, run yourself into the knocker because you didn’t read the book. Physical gambling venues at least offered the experience of watching while the horses raced or the players played or the cards were dealt or the wheels spun. Now people will be blowing their dough on meaningless computer pixels all “in the comforts of home” until they lose it. Maybe then they’ll see how vain it is.
The purpose of the Commerce Clause was to regulate (meaning to keep regular and not a license to micromanage) commerce. Note how the Clause mentions commerce with foreign nations (first!) then the several states and the Indian tribes.
Does FedGov micromanage foreign commerce or the business affairs of the Indian nations?
Time to overturn the Wickard v. Filburn decision and make commerce free again from federal meddling!