Posted on 01/15/2019 4:26:19 AM PST by Theoria
The U.S. Justice Department now says that all internet gambling is illegal.
A November opinion made public Monday reversed a 2011 opinion on the Wire Act, which established the law as applicable to only sports betting. The DOJ claims that the 2011 opinion misinterpreted the statute and reinterprets the Wire Act to encompass all forms of gambling that crosses state boundaries.
The opinion could have wide-reaching effects in states that sell lottery tickets online or where online gambling is legal. This number has increased in recent months following the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize sports betting in the U.S. last year.
GOP megadonor and casino mogul Sheldon Adelson backed a coalition that had long lobbied the Justice Department to reconsider its 2011 decision. While the precise effects of the change are unclear, lobbyists told The Washington Post that it could affect interstate compacts and lotteries.
(Excerpt) Read more at fortune.com ...
“Where in the Constitution is the authority given to the feds to interfere in this matter?”...………
Constitution? “We don’t need no stinking Constitution’ say the demodummies who have proven it over and over again.
Was that the last opinion Sessions wrote before leaving? Sounds like him.
Damn, there goes buying stocks online.
No question the commerce clause is abused, and I would agree that it is abused in this case, as you both point out—but I am sure that this clause, consciously or not, is what those carrying out the actions would use for justification.
“It’s too bad the Justice Dept doesn’t have anything more important to focus on ...”
Too busy raiding VFW, American Legion, senior bingo games, poker games etc.
Sessions influence lingers on.
“Where in the Constitution is the authority given to the feds to interfere in this matter?”
Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee etc could see this kind of crap coming.
The government prefers for all those revenue-gushing lotteries not to have any competition.
Well now that they cleared that up..
if only there was better things for them to do..
Prostitution is legal in Nevada. It is regulated and taxed, just not by the feds .......... yet.
OH, I'm sure some K Street fat cats would suggest otherwise...
All Online Gambling is a Scam
I have a neighbor who will be highly upset if online gambling is shut down.
He stays up late most nights playing online poker. With his winnings in the last five years he has bought a new PT Cruiser, a new Ford F-350 truck and a new zero turn mower.
Retired navy and does NOTHING but play online poker.
I can hear him screaming now.
Tell that to New Jersey- we’ve been flooded with ads for online gambling for months.
Thanks for posting thoughtomator.
Not only did traitor Alexandor Hamilton weaken the idea of a constitutionally limited power federal government with his wide interpretation of the “necessary and proper clause” (1.8.18) to justify a national bank, but the politically correct interpretation of the post-17th Amendment ratification, FDR era Commerce Clause finished the job of effectively repealing the fed’s constitutionally limited powers imo.
Note that state sovereignty-respecting constitutional experts have always been aware of the dangers of politically correct, wide interpretations of the fed’s constitutionally limited powers.
"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids.” —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
"The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution?” —Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2, 1833.
H O W E V E R …
Consider that FDR's justices overturned case precedents established by Gibbons v. Ogden, Paul v. Virginia, and United States v. Butler, cases which emphasized the already clear limits on Congress's Commerce Clause powers.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]." -Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphases added] of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance, regardless if buyer and seller are domeciled in different states.)
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, using inappropriate words like “concept” and “implicit,” here is what was left of the 10th Amendment after FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices got finished with it when they wrongly decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress’s favor imo.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
“Justice Department Says All Online Gambling Is Illegal”
I’m offering $100 at 3:1 odds that they’re wrong!
You pay the “vig” only when you lose and it’s usually 10%
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.