Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Internet gambling could soon be imposed on all 50 states
The Hill ^ | Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)

Posted on 04/09/2014 9:32:31 PM PDT by ObamahatesPACoal

We need to have a debate about whether we really want a full casino attached to every smartphone in America. With the wave of the executive branch magic wand, unfettered Internet gambling could soon be imposed on all 50 states. When the Department of Justice (DOJ) unilaterally reinterpreted the 1961 Wire Act in December 2011, the DOJ circumvented the democratic process and opened the door for a massive policy change absent any significant public debate.

We unequivocally oppose the legalization of online gaming.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: chaffetz; franks; gambling; online; onlinegambling; onlinepoker
Chaffetz is weak on immigration as well.
1 posted on 04/09/2014 9:32:32 PM PDT by ObamahatesPACoal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ObamahatesPACoal
I know that gambling is a problem....I could be an addict if I tried a little harder.....and I know that the mafia or Russian mob or somebody evil will take advantage and steal billions...and I know its a great waste of time....

but as long as the federales have seen fit to allow every Indian "sovereign nation" to establish huge casinos off their reservations and take in billions and billions in untaxed monies, then the hell with restricting online gambling....rather people waste their money there then waste it at the Indian casinos...

2 posted on 04/09/2014 9:37:11 PM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cherry

Failing to ban is not the same thing as imposing. Don’t like gambling? Don’t gamble.


3 posted on 04/09/2014 9:38:22 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ObamahatesPACoal
mlo, you're correct. Government in their lack of knowledge can pass millions of laws, which they do, but if they don't enforce the existing laws, it's all for not. Holder picks and chooses what laws his racist ass wants to. Banning on line gambling won't stop anything. I play poker on the computer all the time. But I don't bet with real money. If a gambler wants to gamble, banning it on line will not stop him or her will not get them to stop.
4 posted on 04/09/2014 9:43:39 PM PDT by Nitehawk0325 (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ObamahatesPACoal

Go start a war Lindsey!

McCain & his little Smithers know what’s wrong with America:

We’re all too free.

They’re gonna’ take care of that!


5 posted on 04/09/2014 9:46:35 PM PDT by Forgotten Amendments (On the wrong side of history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ObamahatesPACoal

$50 says this won’t happen!


6 posted on 04/09/2014 9:47:37 PM PDT by occamrzr06
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: occamrzr06

Give me 3/1 and you are on.


7 posted on 04/09/2014 9:49:38 PM PDT by deadrock (I am someone else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ObamahatesPACoal

Virtual Indian reservations.


8 posted on 04/09/2014 9:52:48 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ObamahatesPACoal

Linda Grahamnesty? [spit]


9 posted on 04/09/2014 9:55:11 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2M for Cruz and/or Palin's next run, what will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deadrock

For 6 months to a year, you’re on. After that, no bets.


10 posted on 04/09/2014 9:55:20 PM PDT by occamrzr06
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ObamahatesPACoal

Wait! Why isn’t this imposed on all fifty-seven states?


11 posted on 04/09/2014 10:08:25 PM PDT by LucyT (If you're NOT paranoid, you don't know what's going on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ObamahatesPACoal
We unequivocally oppose the legalization of online gaming.

Considering that their bill specifically exempts horse-racing, that's a flat-out lie. If they can't even be honest about the big stuff...

12 posted on 04/09/2014 10:23:02 PM PDT by seacapn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cherry; All

One more trick for the rich to get richer and the poor get poorer.


13 posted on 04/09/2014 10:33:29 PM PDT by gleeaikin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ObamahatesPACoal

50 states? i thought obama said there were 57 states?


14 posted on 04/09/2014 11:19:48 PM PDT by max americana (fired liberals in our company last election, and I laughed while they cried (true story))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ObamahatesPACoal

“DOJ circumvented the democratic process and opened the door for a massive policy change absent any significant public debate.”

Kind of like when Bill Frist snuck the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act through by attaching it, literally in the middle of the night, to the Port Security Act right before it was up for a vote?

The fact is the DOJ is simply reverting to the clear language of the 1961 bill which was about sports betting only. The previous “interpretation” that it covered other forms of gambling was made up. They had to drop it due to a court ruling.

“The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the Wire Act prohibition on the transmission of wagers applies only to sports betting and not other types of online gambling.[3] The Supreme Court has not ruled on the meaning of the Federal Wire Act as it pertains to online gambling.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Wire_Act

I suppose these guys have gotten their money from casino mogul Sheldon Adelson who is spending millions to try to stop online competition.


15 posted on 04/09/2014 11:50:01 PM PDT by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ObamahatesPACoal

Where is “restricting gambling” in the Constitution?


16 posted on 04/10/2014 12:10:26 AM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oblomov

Agreed. Either we believe in Constitutional government or we do not. Besides, even absent a Federal ban, it would seem that the states could impose bans.


17 posted on 04/10/2014 6:12:22 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ObamahatesPACoal

First of all, I don’t believe that the power to regulate games of chance falls anywhere within the powers delegated to Congress by the Constitution. The tenth amendment would then apply; the power to regulate gambling would be a power of the states. States could still ban online gambling if the choose to do so.

However, it would seem to me to be a disconnect here. Either gambling is bad and should be banned or gambling is okay and should be permitted. Why is gambling inside a building (or via purchase of a lottery ticket) okay, but gambling on the internet a bad thing that must be banned? What’s the difference? The money that people lose in lotteries or at a casino is just as real as the money people would lose online. Why ban one and not the other? The only real reason I can think of is that the casino owners are politically connected and that the lotteries are government operated. Neither of those will be banned anytime soon. Given that, what’s the harm of permitting online gambling. I thought competition was a good thing.


18 posted on 04/10/2014 6:20:03 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson