A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to ban online gambling

Fishhead · Mar 15, 2006

If the pursuit to ban ONLINE GAMBLING in the UNITED STATES is to indeed become law.......doesnt there have to be a major CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT VOTE enacted for this to happen within each state and a certain high percentage YES votes needed for this to pass........and if so isnt this very, very highly unlikely to ever happen???

PLEASE NOTE, I KNOW ABOUT AS MUCH ABOUT POLITICS as your average run of the mill kindergarden student.......so please forgive my ignorance if this is not true.

maxdemo · Mar 15, 2006

Dont know abount an Amendment but I am sure if they were to make it a law it would have to pass my a Majority Vote

Fishhead · Mar 15, 2006

maxdemo said:
Dont know abount an Amendment but I am sure if they were to make it a law it would have to pass my a Majority Vote

Not to change the subject, but why is it so complicated here in the UNITED STATES to understand the law and how it internally operates and/or the Federal and state income tax codes?

Journeyman · Mar 15, 2006

Fishhead said:
Not to change the subject, but why is it so complicated here in the UNITED STATES to understand the law and how it internally operates and/or the Federal and state income tax codes?

good question, reading the way it's written is ridiculous.

I remember when I received court papers in a divorce case and was disgusted/frustrated with the wording....can anyone explain why it's written, in a way, so hard to comprehend?

:nohead:

SSI · Mar 15, 2006

i just dont get all this talk.. ive always assumed, what we were doing was illegal but wouldnt be enforced.. i still believe that will be the case.. ive gambled for 20yrs now and always had this opinion..

who will enforce this?

im not a bit worried, as im sure there will be a warning and small fine and things of that nature..

ive got locals anyway, so it doesnt matter that greatly to me...

guitarjosh · Mar 15, 2006

Journeyman said:
good question, reading the way it's written is ridiculous.

I remember when I received court papers in a divorce case and was disgusted/frustrated with the wording....can anyone explain why it's written, in a way, so hard to comprehend?

:nohead:

The laws and wording are written mostly by lawyers. They probably word it that way so other lawyers will never be out of work.

Journeyman · Mar 15, 2006

guitarjosh said:
The laws and wording are written mostly by lawyers. They probably word it that way so other lawyers will never be out of work.

This is my thinking.:nopityA:

Nomad1951 · Mar 15, 2006

fishhead...

Why are laws so complicated, tax codes in particular? Because the tax code has less to do about collecting revenue than it does about implementing social policy. Virtually every "loophole," from the mortgage interest deduction to the kiddie tax credit to the credit for buying hybrid cars, is there for a reason other than simple tax dollars.

And that dovetails into the parallel issue of trying to please each and every special interest...

Besides, how else would we keep all the lawyers employed?

Seymour · Mar 15, 2006

You don't need a Constitutional Amendment and I will cut my cock off if there is one - we don't amend our Constitution (well, extremely rare) - as in not even to ban gay marriage - however, Congress could pass a law making it illegal to place wagers - then it would be a federal violation to place a wager - states could pass similar laws - this is all irrelevant as it is unenforceable - they'd really have to after the places accepting wagers and shut them down.

oldmanTED · Mar 15, 2006

A Constitutional Amendment is not needed. Only a Federal law is required with specific language necessary to spell out what is illegal. State laws would then have to be enacted to comply with the new Federal law.

WildBill · Mar 15, 2006

Fish is onto something here. Congress is not to assume any powers not expressly given them by the states. Regulating and outlawing gambling isn't one of them. Congress gets around that pesky Constitution by claiming its an interstate trade or banking regulation. Outright declaration banning gambling would indeed require an amendment. Note though no ban is here, just constraints on commerce for the defense of the public. Thin line there and one could someday argue this is a violation of the Constitution if it goes much further than bans on banking instruments. Goodlatte's bill does raise a risk to Congress, but who is going to fight it?

Nomad1951 · Mar 15, 2006

Remember, it is a federal law that bans any further land-based sports gambling activities in this country, although as Wild Bill has often pointed out, that law might not stand up if challenged in court. Nobody has tried to test it, though, so it stays on the books.

teazeman · Mar 15, 2006

WildBill said:
Fish is onto something here. Congress is not to assume any powers not expressly given them by the states. Regulating and outlawing gambling isn't one of them. Congress gets around that pesky Constitution by claiming its an interstate trade or banking regulation. Outright declaration banning gambling would indeed require an amendment. Note though no ban is here, just constraints on commerce for the defense of the public.

That's how this will be enforced, thru the banks who are in bed with the us government, anyone realize how much legislation has been passed to benefit the banking industry? Don't think they wouldn't return the favor to good old uncle sam.

Woody0 · Mar 15, 2006

WildBill said:
Goodlatte's bill does raise a risk to Congress, but who is going to fight it?

If the extensions to the Wire act are passed that, as well as the banking restrictions, will contravene the WTO agreement/treaty that is itself Federal Law.

Of course a country where the President can break Federal Law, and his oath of office to defend the Constitution, by illegal wiretapping and then state that he plans to continue to break this law and where there are no consequences has totally abandoned the rule of law.

BlackBart · Mar 15, 2006

I believe that we could save billions of dollars in this country if we just had a consumption tax or a national sales tax. Think of how much money we spend on printing tax forms and employing the IRS now. It could all go away. No payroll withholding. If you save your money, it does not get taxed. If and when you spend it, you pay a significant sales tax. The state of Florida (and others) can balance their budget by not taxing income--why can't others? Why can't the federal government? Easy stuff.

Congress has violated the spirit of the original Constitution for years by claiming using the "regulate interstate commerce" clause. It's all BS. If guys like Madison and Jefferson and those guys were still around, they'd crap themselves over how large and powerful the federal government has become. It was not their intention to have it this way.

National sales tax---I'm telling you, it's the answer.

A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to ban online gambling

Search

Fishhead

Active member

maxdemo

And if the Road Warrior says it, it must be true..

Fishhead

Active member

Journeyman

Banned

SSI

New member

guitarjosh

RX resident ChicAustrian

Journeyman

Banned

Nomad1951

proud member since 2001

Seymour

Member

oldmanTED

Professional At All Times

WildBill

New member

Nomad1951

proud member since 2001

teazeman

head turd in the outhouse

Woody0

New member

BlackBart

Life is tough. It's tougher if you're stupid.

Forum statistics

Share this page