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.