Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Reid/Kyl poker bill could be unconstitutional

  1. #1
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10155
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,807
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    68188646

    Reid/Kyl poker bill could be unconstitutional

    http://www.pocketfives.com/articles/...tional-587937/

    A few interesting take-aways from this:

    - Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement was paid by the PPA to analyze the bill and comment on it. His biggest problem was the language restricting sites that took US bets after 2006 (for example, Pokerstars) from participating in the legalized US online poker market. He feels that denies these entities their rights to apply like everyone else, and he feels that's unconstitutional.

    - The PPA has also analyzed the bill and "also has called for changes in the Reid/Kyl draft. Among them: relaxed restrictions on overseas providers and broadening the landscape so U.S. players can compete against counterparts from other countries." This is is interesting because it shows that the PPA still seems to have a loyalty to Pokerstars, who largely funded them (along with Full Tilt) over the years.

    - Pokerstars is allowed by their Full Tilt purchase agreement to provide games to US players if the law changes, but only if they receive a license. It is not known whether they will ever be granted a license.

    - Clement also feels the bill is unconstitutional because it dictates how states can opt in or out to a federally-legalized online poker room, which is a violation of states' rights. (He feels states should be able to make their own rules as to what constitutes agreement to participate in federal-level online poker, or it's not constitutional).

    I think this bill is going to fail anyway. There isn't enough time left before mid-January when the new Congress takes seat, and this just isn't important enough to the country to rush through.

  2. #2
    Platinum ftpjesus's Avatar
    Reputation
    589
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Mesa AZ
    Posts
    4,088
    Load Metric
    68188646
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    http://www.pocketfives.com/articles/...tional-587937/

    A few interesting take-aways from this:

    - Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement was paid by the PPA to analyze the bill and comment on it. His biggest problem was the language restricting sites that took US bets after 2006 (for example, Pokerstars) from participating in the legalized US online poker market. He feels that denies these entities their rights to apply like everyone else, and he feels that's unconstitutional.

    - The PPA has also analyzed the bill and "also has called for changes in the Reid/Kyl draft. Among them: relaxed restrictions on overseas providers and broadening the landscape so U.S. players can compete against counterparts from other countries." This is is interesting because it shows that the PPA still seems to have a loyalty to Pokerstars, who largely funded them (along with Full Tilt) over the years.

    - Pokerstars is allowed by their Full Tilt purchase agreement to provide games to US players if the law changes, but only if they receive a license. It is not known whether they will ever be granted a license.

    - Clement also feels the bill is unconstitutional because it dictates how states can opt in or out to a federally-legalized online poker room, which is a violation of states' rights. (He feels states should be able to make their own rules as to what constitutes agreement to participate in federal-level online poker, or it's not constitutional).

    I think this bill is going to fail anyway. There isn't enough time left before mid-January when the new Congress takes seat, and this just isn't important enough to the country to rush through.
    Druff, you know as well as any, that the Feds have shit so hard on the 10th Amendment that another brown stain doesnt mean anything. The courts have continued to repeatedly uphold the Feds usurping the 10th Amendment, due to the "Interstate Commerce Clause" which would be the arguement, per usual if challenged. Obamacare SCOTUS ruling basically all but destroyed the 10th Amendment unless and until we get a court that actually decides to actually adhere to their oath to the Constitution nothing will change.

  3. #3
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10155
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,807
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    68188646
    Kiss it goodbye.

    http://www.lvrj.com/news/reid-pulls-...183548271.html



    I knew this was never going to happen in this lame-duck session.

    LOL @ the PPA for misleading people into believing there was a decent chance of this.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Sen. Harry Reid Hit in Motorcade - Injured
    By 4Dragons in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-26-2012, 01:24 PM
  2. If Bill Nye lived in the ghetto
    By DirtyB in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-14-2012, 04:05 PM
  3. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 08-05-2012, 10:55 PM
  4. Senate Republicans Block Bill on Student Loan Rates
    By LLL in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-08-2012, 11:02 AM