Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="PurgatoryD, post: 1736842, member: 43498"] I wasn't aware that changing the legal status of online poker in the US was a criteria for posting here on CC. Of course I realize that. This is a community of people with the common interest of playing poker. In light of what has happened, I think it's pretty natural that we're going to hash out some different ideas regarding the legality of online play in the US. That's certainly one route. Another is the poker lobbyists talking to members of congress directly. Another possible route is the federal court system. If the current law is indeed unconstitutional, then it can be overturned. But I think there are sufficient lawmakers that see the dollar signs in online poker, so I'm sure we'll see new laws on the books. Well, you're certainly entitled to that belief. Other rights removed by force of law have been struck down as unconstitutional in the past, so it's not as if this argument is completely unprecedented or unproven. In the specific case of online poker, there are all kinds of interstate commerce laws that kick in as well, so I could see it going either way. But I think we'll get new laws well before anything could work its way through the court system. Who said that this argument is being aired only on CC? And since when is the desire to bring about social change a prerequisite for posting here on CC? What's wrong with just hashing out ideas with others who share a love for the game of poker? Posting my argument here on CC has actually been quite fruitful in that I have learned that even poker players really don't believe that US players have a constitutional right to play online. I honestly did not know that before, so this discussion has been quite useful. I had written to our local newspaper even before the recent federal crackdown. Our state has been pushing to get a state poker network operating. Personally, I think that's a bad idea. I don't want my government telling me that I can play online poker so long as I play in this little sandbox over here. LOL, not surprisingly, my idea is not very popular, so I'm pretty certain that the plan for intrastate play will be moving forward. On the bright side, at least California is a fairly populous state. I can't imagine living in North Dakota and being stuck on their state network. Who could make a go of that? I think the US is a bit of a hybrid system. Yes, preference is typically given to previous case precedence when possible, but judges can break from precedence when they feel it misinterpreted written law. By doing so, though, they realize they are setting new precedence, so this is not done lightly. Supreme court justices, for instance, have done this. Strict civil law sounds good on paper, but the problem is that due to ambiguities in language alone, you inevitably end up with laws that are enforced one way for some and another way for others. That is a basic ingredient for corruption within the judicial system. I'm sure it had to do with the fairness issue and corruption. Imagine those with means or those with ties to the church getting a different form of "justice" than everyone else. That's why, for better or worse, I think it's the closest form of "blind justice" they could come up with. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us