Barney Frank's Gambling Bill introduced today
05-06-2009
, 09:36 PM
Quote:
I'm studying for my con law final on Friday, so here are a few things I quickly wrote up about standing, and the commerce clause that the courts will consider if the law is passed, and a state then attempts to ban internet gambling. This would probably be an interesting fact pattern:
The first problem any lawsuit would face is the question of standing. This would be one of the more difficult tasks to face, especially if the court has a moral objection to gambling, as they could throw the case out just on this issue alone. Any plaintiff challenging the law would have to show an injury in fact (ie they are somehow negatively affected by the law), Causation, which means but for the government actions you would not have suffered the injury, and Redressabillity, which means the court must be able to come up with a solution to your problem, ie declaring the law unconstitutional. The most difficult of the situations to prove would be causation, as the plaintiff would have to be a winning player who derives his income from internet gambling. A losing player would not be suffering an injury. Furthermore, the plaintiff would probably have to show they could not derive this income somewhere else. A unfriendly judge could say you could derive the same income in a casino, or in another industry, and refuse to hear the case. It would probably be unwise for a third party such as the PPA to challenge a law, as they would have to show they have a sufficiently close relationship with a internet poker player, and a obstacle why said internet poker player is not appearing in court
.....
As long as the purpose of the tax is produce revenue, and not punish, the tax will be allowed.
The first problem any lawsuit would face is the question of standing. This would be one of the more difficult tasks to face, especially if the court has a moral objection to gambling, as they could throw the case out just on this issue alone. Any plaintiff challenging the law would have to show an injury in fact (ie they are somehow negatively affected by the law), Causation, which means but for the government actions you would not have suffered the injury, and Redressabillity, which means the court must be able to come up with a solution to your problem, ie declaring the law unconstitutional. The most difficult of the situations to prove would be causation, as the plaintiff would have to be a winning player who derives his income from internet gambling. A losing player would not be suffering an injury. Furthermore, the plaintiff would probably have to show they could not derive this income somewhere else. A unfriendly judge could say you could derive the same income in a casino, or in another industry, and refuse to hear the case. It would probably be unwise for a third party such as the PPA to challenge a law, as they would have to show they have a sufficiently close relationship with a internet poker player, and a obstacle why said internet poker player is not appearing in court
.....
As long as the purpose of the tax is produce revenue, and not punish, the tax will be allowed.
- - its not really fair to give or take points on style when dealing with an internet post. 
You have identified all the correct issues for a con-law exam (there are statutory considerations present in the overall debate that are not constitutional questions), and answered all of them completely and with a good logical argument, IMHO, except for the standing argument. And that's the only reason you don't get a solid A from me.
The PPA would have little difficulty establishing associational standing here. But even having said that, there is no reason why the PPA would not litigate on behalf of any member directly affected. The law regarding addressable harm is far from limited to direct economic damages - even a mere loss of a form of entertainment can be actionable (albeit only in a very unfavorable legal posture: "the law is irrational" for example).
For those of you not interested in the grading of this post but the subject matter, let me say as the PPA's Litigation Support Director - if one of our members is arrested for, or denied the ability to, play online poker, the PPA WILL be involved in litigation over that to the fullest extent possible.
All in all, though, nice job supotomac.
05-06-2009
, 09:45 PM
05-06-2009
, 09:48 PM
must need spell check and all of that fancy stuff :-) a MS word like program would be nice
05-06-2009
, 10:45 PM
05-06-2009
, 11:31 PM
Quote:
I would be glad to take your advice. Would you be able to post your arguments as to why on line poker is currently legal. Im not detracting from your skill as a lawyer but, if you could craft an argument that on line poker is illegal couldnt another attorney do the same?
As to our side's basic arguments, there is a lot out there. Google is your friend.
You can find my basic arguments here, so thats a good place to start: http://pokerplayersalliance.org/forums/forum/55You also might want to check out the legal briefs filed in various cases and collected at the PPA website (though you need to be a member to access this stuff): http://pokerplayersalliance.org/resources/legal/
Skallagrim
PS - the master sticky for the 2+2 Legislation Forum has a good bit of information too (disclosure: I helped write it).
Last edited by Skallagrim; 05-06-2009 at 11:36 PM.
