Objecting to a National Online Gambling Ban, State Legislators Remind Rick Perry About That 10th Amendment Thingie
As I noted on Tuesday, supporters of a new federal ban on Internet gambling claim they are defending federalism, even though the bill would override the policy choices of states that decide to allow online betting. The sponsors even managed to enlist Texas Gov. Rick Perry, an avowed defender of the 10th Amendment, to certify that prohibiting online gambling throughout the country is what the Framers would have wanted. The National Conference of State Legislatures sees things differently. In a letter they sent to members of Congress yesterday, the organization's president and president-elect complain that the ban, which was instigated by casino magnate and GOP benefactor Sheldon Adelson as a way of forestalling online competition, intrudes on the prerogatives of state legislators:
We write to express our strong opposition to the Restoration of America's Wire Act, and urge you to respect the sovereignty of states to decide whether or not to allow gambling, and in particular online gambling….
States have proven that they are effective regulators of the gambling industry and the proponents of this legislation fail to make a case that we have been negligent in our responsibilities to the industry and consumers….
Since the 2011 Department of Justice opinion clarifying the scope of the Wire Act, Delaware, Nevada, New Jersey and the U.S. Virgin Islands have legalized some form of online gambling within their state, while Utah and Maine have acted to forbid such activity. Many more states are considering bills that would authorize, expand or restrict Internet gambling as well. This is the way it should work, each state making the decision that is best suited to the desires of its residents and not through a congressional mandate.
It's an argument that Rick Perry ought to understand, since he has made it himself.
On a side note, the bill's backers really should fix its name—not just because it's misleading but because it makes no sense. What, exactly, is "America's Wire," and why should we want to restore it?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What does the 10A say about alt-text?
On a side note, the bill’s backers really should fix its name
They were originally gonna go with the Sheldon Adelson Doesn’t Care For Competition Act, but that didn’t test well.
Well we now know which Governor Sheldon Adelson is gonna fund in the 2016 GOP Primary.
Sheldon Adelson is the Walder Frey of the GOP.
I just hope he takes out the right ones at the Red Wedding.
It is not the “Restoration of America’s Wire Act”. It is the “Restoration of America’s Wire Act Act”.
It is an Act purporting to restore our Wire Act. It’s unconstitutional, it’s immoral, it’s unrestrained corporatism of the worst sort, but it isn’t incoherent.
Besides, it is fun to say “act” over and over. “Act act act act”.
Try it.
Reminds me of…
“I want a cop on every corner, and I want to remind the American people that we’ve still got two out of three branches of government, and that ain’t bad.”
Reminds me of this
http://youtu.be/q3Ofgdu4ZDs
Wanted use the Minutemen, but this was the best I could do from iphone.
From the text of the bill:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Restoration of America’s Wire Act”.
So if I use Chinese wires to talk to servers in the Caymans, I can totally use a sports book or poker site, right?
I’m curious:
Is gambling “commerce”? Doesn’t look like it to me.
http://thelawdictionary.org/commerce/
If not, where do the feds get the authority to say boo about it?
It affects commerce in some vague, indirect way so Congress has every authority to ban it, at least that’s what I’m told.
Banning online gambling to satisfy the wishes of a political megadonor is exactly the type of quid pro quo corruption that John Roberts was talking about. It’s so blatantly obvious, but the politicians line up to get their cut anyway.
Having met the man, I can tell you:
Rick Perry is a genuinely stupid person. Not just misguided or delusional, but actually pretty dim.
The sponsors even managed to enlist Texas Gov. Rick Perry, an avowed defender of the 10th Amendment, to certify that prohibiting online gambling throughout the country is what the Framers would have wanted.
Along side speech restrictions, firearms restrictions, trade restrictions, warrantless searches and complete abdication of due process.