All this time, it was just something blown into a simple statement? And it was a rider?
Congress and news media, why do you mock the people so?
| Homestar Runner Wiki Forum http://forum.hrwiki.org/ |
|
| The alleged "online gambling ban" in the U.S. http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10048 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | furrykef [ Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | The alleged "online gambling ban" in the U.S. |
Warning: This post is mostly a rant. Since about the end of September and the beginning of October, the various media outlets have been reporting about a "ban on online gaming" and whatnot that was about to pass/has passed. There's only one problem: Online gambling was not and still is not illegal. What happened was a couple of senators attached a rider to the Safe Port Act, a bill that, under the circumstances, could not fail, even with the rider attached to it. (I hate riders and I think they should be banned from Congress. But, short of a Constitutional amendment, only Congress would have the power to ban them, and they wouldn't ban one of their own tactics, would they?) This rider allegedly bans online gambling, but it does nothing even close to that. Here's an analysis of the bill: http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_news/article/3272 - an analysis that is very well supported by simply reading the bill. In short, it states clearly, in plain English, that any gambling that falls under that law has to already be illegal. And there's no existing law in the United States about online gambling (contrary to what the Attorney General and the Justice Department believe), other than a state law in Washington. Furthermore, the law only applies to financial institutions... and the financial institution usually used to put money into and out of casinos, NETeller, isn't even under U.S. jurisdiction, so that's hardly a problem. But in the media, all you hear is "online gaming ban". Sure, it's easier and simpler to say than the truth, but don't they have some sort of obligation to report the truth? Sigh, yet another example of how sensationalism, no matter how exaggerated or false, prevails. No wonder I don't watch the news. - Kef |
|
| Author: | Didymus [ Wed Oct 18, 2006 3:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What would even be the point of a so-called "online gambling ban" if it doesn't even ban online gambling? That doesn't even make sense to start with. Well, I suppose it might help to enforce things like online dog-fighting and things like that. |
|
| Author: | StrongRad [ Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Didymus wrote: What would even be the point of a so-called "online gambling ban" if it doesn't even ban online gambling? That doesn't even make sense to start with. What's happening in November?
It's purely a "I voted to keep your family's money safe from evil online casinos" ploy. Kef, in general, I agree with your statement about riders being banned. I don't think banning them outright is a good idea, though. Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to do that than to enforce my idea of only allowing riders that are related to the bill, mainly because my idea is pretty subjective. Of course, I'm sure that, faced with this, there would be those who could/would link online gambling with port security, somehow. |
|
| Author: | furrykef [ Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
StrongRad wrote: Unfortunately, it's a lot easier to do that than to enforce my idea of only allowing riders that are related to the bill, mainly because my idea is pretty subjective.
Well, a "rider" usually refers to an unrelated item. I've no problem with amendments related to a bill, of course. I hear that the British Parliament requires a bill to have a title that precisely describes the subject matter of the bill, and an amendment to that bill is required to fit that description. I'd be in favor of such a system, even though it has been circumvented (by using vague titles, for example); I doubt such circumvention would be as serious as what we have now, at least. - Kef |
|
| Author: | StrongRad [ Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah, you're right, there would be circumvention for sure, but you'd have to make a title pretty vague to do something like putting a law about gambling into a bill designed to secure the ports. I do fear that it will get worse. Now, all you have to do is attach something that the president would never sign onto a bill that would pass no matter what. You could, say, put something banning eating meat into a bill designed to fund schools. Then, if/when the president doesn't sign the bill, you spin it and say "The president doesn't want to increase funding to public schools!". Ok, so that's a little extreme, but nothing suprises me anymore. A line item veto could help kill this practice of riders, although it might give a president powers above those granted in the constitution. |
|
| Author: | furrykef [ Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
StrongRad wrote: A line item veto could help kill this practice of riders, although it might give a president powers above those granted in the constitution.
An act of Congress did give the President the use of the line-item veto, but the law was struck down as unconstitutional. So a Constitutional amendment would still be needed to do anything about the situation... - Kef |
|
| Author: | ChickenLeg [ Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
All this time, it was just something blown into a simple statement? And it was a rider? Congress and news media, why do you mock the people so?
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|