Posted on 08/22/2013 1:13:24 PM PDT by Kaslin
Congress has been ceding power to the executive branch for more than two decades. In the 2008 presidential election, President George W. Bush was often criticized by then-candidate Barack Obama for his executive overreaches. Candidate Obama even promised to “reverse” the Bush Administration’s expansion of executive authority in 2007. However, no president in modern history has done more to circumvent Congress and rewrite legislation than President Obama has.
While the Obama Administration’s rewriting of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to delay timeframes may immediately come to mind, perhaps the most blatant example of executive branch overreach is the Justice Department’s decision to rewrite more than 50 years of consistent interpretation of the Wire Act of 1961 to allow revenue-seeking state governments to go into the online gambling business.
Perhaps most disturbingly, the Justice Department’s decision is clearly a result of back-room deals, coming without a single Congressional hearing or public discussion on the topic. And, to compound matters, the decision was released on Christmas Eve 2011 – an extreme version of the infamous Friday afternoon news dump.
Since 1961, both Democratic and Republican administrations interpreted the law to prevent states from instituting online lotteries. However, facing pressure from the President’s home state of Illinois and the Vice President’s home state of Delaware, the Attorney General said states can not only institute online lotteries, but also other online gaming, including poker, slots and blackjack.
In addition to the Wire Act of 1951, the Unlawful Internet Gaming Act of 2006 (UIGEA) makes it illegal to transmit or accept Internet payments in connection with gambling. Through these two pieces of legislation, Congress clearly asserted itself. Yet, the Administration used an executive directive to reverse the legislation's clear intent, sending big-spending states facing budget deficits into a furor over which one could be the first to capitalize.
Unsurprisingly, it was the President’s home state of Illinois that struck first, followed by an expansion of online gaming in other cash-strapped states including Delaware and New York. Until recently, Congress was largely silent on the issue.
But, last month, the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Insurance held a hearing on the fallout from the DOJ’s hasty decision, particularly with respect to vulnerable populations, notably teenagers and young adults and the elderly. In testimony before the subcommittee, Catholic Advocate President Matt Smith cited the CEO of the leading lottery provider in the U.S., who stated that his company sought to attract “younger players” via online gaming and noted that Internet-based gambling platforms have few protections in place to exclude underage players.
Senior citizen groups have expressed similar concerns. 60 Plus Association Chairman Jim Martin wrote in a letter to Senator Kelly Ayotte, who sits on the subcommittee, that expanded online gambling "leaves millions of seniors vulnerable to losing their life savings to online predators and overseas scam artists who have only been encouraged by this rule change"
Congress needs to reassert itself and make its ban on government-sponsored Internet gambling explicit, taking back control and oversight over trade and commerce in the process. Our elected representatives should be a bulwark against executive overreach and move to halt the Obama Administration's now-familiar practice of legislating by fiat. Vulnerable populations shouldn't have to pay the price for the inability of a handful of liberal states to rein in government spending.
“the Attorney General said states can not only institute online lotteries, but also other online gaming, including poker, slots and blackjack”
Yeah, like I am going to throw my money away playing poker in a game the state is running. It will never be fair odds.
More Big Brotherism. As far as I'm concerned, Congress can do soemthing with itself, and I don't mean "assert".
Between the nanny-state authoritarians in the Democratic Party and the nanny-state authoritarians in the Republican Party, it's a wonder we have any freedom left at all.
No government has the right to tell me whether I can gamble or not. It's just more Tyrannical overreaching.
I love the way the Government investigates it’s own scandals.
Fast and Furious and Benghazi come immediately to mind.
Nothing like investigating your own problems.
It isn't gambling when the game is rigged, and it is.
In Holdem, it is easier to win if you can see your opponents hole cards, and they can.
In the 2006 election the Republicans lost 33 House seats, 6 Senate seats and control of both. At least part of that was because the way this section was added in the conference committee at the last minute to the unrelated Safe Port Act which was then approved by both houses as their members dashed out for the last month of campaigning.
Most gambling laws restrict the business, which has to be incorporated, licensed, taxed, etc, not the gambler. They don’t say you can’t place the bet, they say the companies can’t TAKE the bet (and more importantly, can’t build the business that NEEDS the bet).
Yeah and you know why they lost them, because idiots wanted to punish the GOP. What did it get us. The left took over and disaster started as soon as in January after Pelosi became Speaker of the House. Then after that arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave moved into the residence they shoved the 0bamacare down our throat. So the blame goes to those who stayed home
If the GOP would start taking its "get the government out of our lives" rhetoric seriously, people wouldn't feel the need to punish them every so often.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.