Ron Paul: Internet Gambling Ban Is A “Losing Bet”
CRONYISM – NOT MORALITY – BEHIND PROPOSED ONLINE GAMBLING PROHIBITION By RON PAUL || You must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
CRONYISM – NOT MORALITY – BEHIND PROPOSED ONLINE GAMBLING PROHIBITION By RON PAUL || You must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
19 comments
Interesting article. I encourage all of you to buy my new book when it is published: “How to Make Lottery Tickets Vital to Your Financial Planning”
Can’t have any competition against the lottery, bingo parlors, casinos, illegal gambling rings set up by local officials, etc.
… and the Catholic Church?
Adelson loves bribing pols to expand his gambling empire, whether in this country or others.
Online gambling businesses should be subject to the same regulations and taxes as their offline counterparts, nothing more, nothing less.
Gambling. Living proof that a fool and his money are soon parted.
“Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given any authority to regulate activities such as online gambling.”
Wrong again…
U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. It’s known as the Commerce Clause. You should read it sometime.
The great thing about the commerce clause is that there are no practical limits to what we can regulate with it.
I agree with you, but just because they can, doesn’t mean they should. Paul is right that this internet gambling ban is a political favor, regardless of whether or not Congress has the plenary power to prohibit it.
This is yet to be determined … and the Supremes have given a pass to the stock markets and their croupiers … Go figure.
I’m not sure what you think has yet to be determined. The Commerce Clause specifically gives Congress the power to regulate commerce between the states or with foreign countries. I’m also not sure how you figure the Commerce Clause doesn’t apply to the stock markets. It most assuredly does.
As pertains to gambling …
The stock, bond and commodities markets have been given an almost totally free hand by the “commerce” department, the SEC, the IRS, the Supreme Court(s), I mean, who got bailed out in ’08? Who has failed to pay transaction taxes and/or income taxes on those bailouts? Was it the unregulated banks and brokers? Does not that mean big heaping piles of intrastate, interstate, international commerce?
These paper hanger paper products are commerce, certainly … but other than the broker’s personal income, left virtually untaxed and unregulated by g’ment. (BTW: the EU, unencumbered by such unconstitutional or constitutional guarantees, does in fact tax stock, bond and commodity paper flipping.)
Your points pertain to the extent to which Congress has or has not exercised its power to regulate certain types of interstate commerce. My point is that Folks is unambiguously incorrect in his assertion that the Constitution doesn’t give Congress the power to regulate online gaming. The Commerce Clause is as clear a grant of such power as one can hope to find. Whether it’s good policy is a different question.
One would assume that you believe that congress is in charge … Not!
The federal bureaucracy regularly runs right over any Constitutional Rights without so much as a by your leave from congress. … This is why the “new” republicrats got elected = to hamstring the fed bureaucracy with “cut ’em off at the pockets” promises … It may happen yet.
All of which has precisely nothing to do with anything I’ve said.
Then say something simple and direct instead of spouting your newspeak lawyerese road apples.
If you believe that the commerce clause, as currently manipulated by government, has any benefit to US Citizens, other than being used by the bureaucracy as a tool to extract more and more taxes, say so … or take a hike.
Ok, let’s see if you can follow this:
Ron Paul said there was no constitutional authority for regulating online gaming. I corrected the good doctor by pointing out that the Commerce Clause gives explicit authority to Congress to regulate commerce between the states and with foreign countries. You then proceeded to yammer on about various complaints you have with the way Congress has or has not exercised its Commerce Clause powers. I then pointed out that your comments were unrelated to my point. You then expanded your irrelevant complaints and invited me to comment on them or “take a hike.” That’s pretty much it. I decline your invitation. If by “take a hike” you mean ignore any future stupidity from you, I accept that invitation.
There is Constitutional authority and treaty authority for it. The Constitution does not address gambling at all. Several Supreme Court decisions have affirmed the rights of the native tribes to enter into this kind of commerce, confirming their rights to do so by treaty.
Yes, take a hike, please.
Bet Papa Paul’s son Rand will soon pal around with this idea, before he was against it.
So Adelson believes online gambling is a “societal train wreck” but gambling in the flesh in one of his casinos is a morally purifying exercise?
The US populace, electorate really needs to wake up and smell the espresso martini.