"It's unconstitutional!" is among their favorites.
[Occassionally I'll read the Poker Grump. I find his misanthropic take on the poker world amusing. And it's always interesting to read about people who live very different lives from mine. Recently the Grump discussed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act and betrayed his conservative, almost paranoid anti-government politics. Anti-government diatribes really make my blood boil so I had to say something. (I improved some grammar in my comments.)]
The Poker Grump's Other Side Of The Coin
I say:
"Online poker is not a legitimate concern of the federal government, which has neither constitutional authority nor any reason to be involved in the field at all."
That's patently absurd. We can argue the wisdom of government regulation of this particular industry, but you can't just pretend the Constitution doesn't exist or wish away relevant clauses. Have you read article 1, section 8?
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ...
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Clearly constitutional.
The Grump responds:
Glad constitutional law comes so effortlessly to you. You should get appointed to the Supreme Court.
Did you click the link to read my earlier post where I addressed this? I'm guessing not.
Have you done any reading into the history of what the words "regulate" and "commerce" meant to the writers of the Constitution? I'm guessing not.
I respond:
"First is the general principle. We should be free to play poker (or blackjack or anything else) with our own money from the privacy of our own homes. Period."
I don't know where this "should be" comes from. The whole thing seems reminiscent of the Napster argument a few years back. I don't see much of an justification beyond a) it's cool and b) it benefits me personally. I guess that pretending financial transactions between players and online casinos is not commerce is a necessary prerequisite to buy into your unconstitutional argument. Are you really banking your argument on the notion that the writers of the Constitution could not have envisioned the Internet? If the document cannot be applied to new technology and new social dilemmas then the whole thing is of no use.
Though I not convinced you're really interested in discussing the issue. Starting by quoting the Bible and declaring "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness" suggests that readers just back the hell off and let you suffer under your burden of wisdom.
Conan776 says:
Erik, so by your logic, what's to stop the Feds from tacking on an extra X% tax on software engineers, or roofers, or plumbers. Maybe every time I need to fix my roof, Uncle Sam has the right to tax off 10% right away based on the estimate? That's the current understanding vis a vis poker per the current bills floating around Congress -- poker players are sinful, immoral people, so Congress must skim off the top to discourage such horrid immoral behavior. And the so-called "Poker Player's Alliance", et al., are happy to go along with such a farce. Meh!
I respond:
@Conan
Democracy. If we don't like our government's priorities we should look in the mirror. Because we're responsible.
I agree with you that we need to take a good look at how the proposed legislation would affect the industry should it become law. My point is that this examination must begin with a recognition of the powers granted to Congress in the Constitution.
I mean we still could be answering to the British Monarchy. All of us could've had the misfortune of being born in a land ruled by a military junta. We weren't. We were born in the oldest democracy on the planet where we have the good fortune and responsibility of self-governance.
So denying the laws of the land as a starting point for your argument- I don't get it. What you're facing here is the fact that other people don't share your priorities. Their livelihoods are taxed and they're wondering why this industry- online poker, your livelihood- is exempt. It's a question of priorities that the people, through their representation in Congress, need to answer. It's not a Constitutional question.
I give the Grump credit for allowing my comments to stand. In the past they've been deleted by bloggers who dislike publishing dissenting opinion.