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?