Posted on 08/21/2007 11:41:49 AM PDT by DesScorp
Thanks . .
You can count on my being Conservative ! ! I’ll be visiting different threads and jumping in as lead . . : )
BTW, do all posts get reviewed or just new arrival’s postings?
Thanks Greg . . .
Eh, I would not mind getting the feds out of such things. But how do you defend against interstate/international racketeers and smuggling/contraband then?
Most federal laws came to be during prohibition, the mafia wars, and drug wars for the particular purpose of unified law against interstate/international racketeers...
States do not have any authority outside their own respective boundaries, and cannot make treaties with foreign governments.
Ping to #425
Unless a mod just happens to be reading your post, your post does not recieve any more regard than anyone else's post. But... the little "report" tab under everyones post is for reporting bad posts and is used often on newbies as yourself if you post something highly irregular. If someone reports one of your post, it will be read by a moderator and action taken as needed.
On my home page (click on my name) I have a list of the mods (about halfway down). There is sidebar mods, religious mods, etc... be nice to them, and they will be nice to you, and try not to bother them to often is a good rule of thumb.
If you have any other questions, just send me a FReepmail and I will try to elaborate.
Making treaties with foreign governments and taking care of smuggling across international borders is the federal government's job, and I don't have any problem with them doing it, as long as they're using that power for it's intended purposes.
Indeed. I would also submit that interstate matters must be a federal matter too, though admittedly, the way that occurred (largely) through the commerce clause is quite a stretch- Still, when crime is committed across state lines, there has to be a set of laws to deal with that, no?
If a racketeer can legally exist in one state and cause crimes in surrounding states (wherein his actions are illegal by each state's law respectively) who has the authority for interdiction and prosecution in that case?
If a racketeer can legally exist in one state and cause crimes in surrounding states (wherein his actions are illegal by each state's law respectively) who has the authority for interdiction and prosecution in that case?
I believe that state where the crime occurred can go after them, even if they haven't violated any laws in the state where they are located. I've read of several cases of the AG here in Missouri going after bolier room scam operations being run from Florida, without needing any federal invervention to do so.
The problem with most Commerce Clause regulation is that there really isn't any objective of regulating commerce - ie there is no irregularity in the state of interstate commerce they are attempting to remedy. "Regulating commerce" is used as a tactic to regulate or control things the were not empowered or intended to control.
But what to do in cases like what occurred during the mafia wars, where officials in state and local enforcement were bribed or threatened into compliance... where "connected" men were "elected" into office by strong-arm tactics, usurping the will of the people? The corruption was so pervasive that the syndicates were literally untouchable.
If the corrupted system would not cooperate with others seeking extradition, then the whole system is rendered ineffective.
The problem with most Commerce Clause regulation is that there really isn't any objective of regulating commerce [...]
I wholeheartedly agree.
The problem lies in the invention of the automobile, paved roads, interstate highway systems and telephones. Criminal enterprise that used to be constricted to localities in horse-and-buggy days can now grow quickly to become an interstate or even international problem before it is even discovered by law enforcement.
Since "transportation across state lines" was really the only authority remotely applicable that was granted to the feds, I believe it was haphazardly stretched out of shape to accommodate such things as they arose.
I might add that at the time, it was done with the blessing of the states (by and large) as they really needed the help.
I am not a cheerleader here, BTW, But I do see the necessity. I would be happy to support another method if there is one you can suggest.
In any event, such things were not implemented by rabid Christians to impress morality upon the nation as has been implied upon this thread. They were implemented as a necessity against criminal organizations.
-Bruce
I believe that is purpose of the process of amendment.
In any event, such things were not implemented by rabid Christians to impress morality upon the nation as has been implied upon this thread. They were implemented as a necessity against criminal organizations.
Having been witness to many of the threads involving the online gambling legislation I'm finding that claim just a little too much to swallow.
I would be happy to see an amendment, if only to straighten out the Commerce Clause mess- But considering the dunderheads we have in congress, I am probably even happier to leave it be until a more appropriate time.
IOW, though, your objection is but a technical one- If the power were vested in the federal government by proper amendment, you would no longer have an objection to federal vice laws?
Internet gambling is another really good example of a moral issue that has grown beyond the state's reach... How is a state that is against gambling able to regulate and enforce against it? It's a real problem. But by the same token, I don't know how giving the matter to the feds solves that issue.
Perhaps such things would be best taken care of by creating more first-level domains (http;//xxx. ,http;//gam. , etc) so that they could be filtered out more easily by the states, not to mention individual persons. Such a scheme might be more favorable than more draconian means.
Another real problem is gay marriage. Since states are obligated to recognize the marriages performed in other states, Massachusetts' legalization of gay marriage is basically shoving gay marriage down the throats of all the other states. I am really uncomfortable with a federal solution, but I fail to see another way without a serious face-off at the state level.
-Bruce
The fact that we have such dunderheads in Congrerss is precisely why we need to get it straightened out.
IOW, though, your objection is but a technical one- If the power were vested in the federal government by proper amendment, you would no longer have an objection to federal vice laws?
I might or might not agree with specific laws or provisions but I wouldn't have a problem with them having the authority if the States properly choose to give it to them. The underlying premise of such "technicality" arguments is that if federal legislation were subjected to public debate and required explicit general approval we'd still end up with the same laws. I don't think that's a valid premise.
Internet gambling is another really good example of a moral issue that has grown beyond the state's reach... How is a state that is against gambling able to regulate and enforce against it? It's a real problem. But by the same token, I don't know how giving the matter to the feds solves that issue.
Show me a state that is opposed to gambling enough to actually pass state laws banning it, and if they have one their own state lottery along with it.
The online gambling ban was allegedly to keep terrorist organizations from using internet gambling sites for money laundering. So far there's no evidence that terrorist orgainzations actually do this. If this is really a national security issue, I don't have a problem with it but I expect you to be able to demonstate that is indeed the case. Arguing for federal regulation on the basis of "morality" makes it evident that it isn't and never was justifiable on "national security" grounds in the first place.
Agreed- Though I would stipulate that I believe the whole mess to be a rather stupid patchwork applied in a reaction to necessity, rather than any great intended malice toward state's rights. Dunderheads, indeed.
The underlying premise of such "technicality" arguments is that if federal legislation were subjected to public debate and required explicit general approval we'd still end up with the same laws.
Agreed, though with reservations. Somehow we must get back to referendums, at least to define the will of the people on general issues. Lobbying forces have become nearly insurmountable.
Show me a state that is opposed to gambling enough to actually pass state laws banning it, and if they have one their own state lottery along with it.
Two things:
1). Local gambling is subject to state taxes. How does the state get their "cut" from internet gambling? I would think they have an interest from that angle.
2). Again, if lobbying forces were out of the way, and the issue of gambling was brought before the people, I doubt that it would pass, internet or otherwise.
I am not against your right to gamble if you so desire, but like other vices, I would prefer that it were relegated to "the other side of the tracks", as it were.
I'm not against your wanting or trying to get it so regulated, as long as it's made clear up front why you're wanting to do it, and keeping it in the appropriate venue.
As far as the state getting their "cut" goes, that's part of an ongoing question concerning internet and interstate commerce in general. There's some basic questions that need answered there.
If I drive across a state line to play poker at a casino, is my home state entitled to a "cut" of that transaction? What changes substantially if I connect to their site from my home computer and play the same game from there?
I would think that since your physical self is across the state line in the first example, your state would not be able to regulate or tax your behavior- You are under the protections and rights of the neighboring state.
However, in the second instance, your physical self has not crossed the state line, and is therefore subject to the laws of your home state.
That is the significant difference, as I am sure you will agree.
In regard to interstate purchases by mail order, there is some discussion about which end gets to tax the sale- To my knowledge, your obligation is to the state of delivery, or in most cases, the state that you are in.
I have no idea how that actually works, as Montana (my state) has no sales tax. I do know that I do not pay sales tax in the originating state when purchasing on-line, or at least not to my knowledge.
If that is correct, that bolsters the idea that the gambling taxes would be the right of the state in which your physical self resides.
And that is the significant difference that decides who has the authority to regulate your gambling activities, and who's responsibility it is to enforce those regulations.
Another legitimate question: Who regulates the internet gambling site? Who assures that you won't get stiffed? Who makes sure the "software dealers/machines" aren't rigged?
States that allow gambling also have regulations and regulators in place to ensure a fair deal, both to protect the gambler and the house.
Such a state could be open to liability if their regulators fail to enforce state regulatory law upon internet gambling.
Who "regulates" any business, and assures that their product is as advertised, and their customers aren't getting stiffed?
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.