Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

To all U.S. players who play online poker for a living and part-time living....

Reply to Thread
  1. NevadaRick NevadaRick is offline

    Wells, NV
    United States

    Posts: 698
    Joined: Aug 05

    May 5th, 2007 (5/5/2007 1:31am)

    I want to make something perfectly clear here...I AM NOT A LAWYER OR A LAW STUDENT...so excuse me if my question(s) are idiotic and totally wrong.

    14th Amendment requires the Government to regulate for the public welfare, not to exploit government power for the benefit of political insiders.

    Isn't it a violation of the 14th Amendment by the Federal Government in preventing United States citizens from playing online poker as a living because it has not yet been determined that playing online poker is illegal. Since it isn't illegal, the Government has made it illegal to deposit funds, or cashout earnings, this in turn affects the US citizens who play online poker from earning a living.

    So I guess my question is since the UIGEA was passed and yet exemptions were carved out for such things as horseracing and lotteries, doesn't that in fact violate two proponents of the 14th Amendment.

    It is pretty reasonable to see that lobbyist groups put pressure on legislators to carve out horseracing and lotteries, thus violating the requirement that the Government regulate for public welfare, not to exploit power for the benefit of political insiders.

    Again since online poker has yet to be determined if it is illegal or not, and the Government's decision to pass this bill which will severly affect the person who plays online poker for a living also violates the 14th Amendment of a person's right to earn a living.

    I don't know if it was pointless to bring this topic out since it isn't going to change anything but just something I researched and wanted to bring to light and get some opinions.

    Also if I am an idiot for bringing this up the by all means....FLAME AWAY!!! :)
  2. computerb computerb is offline

    Nashville, TN
    United States

    Posts: 10,169
    Joined: Mar 06

    May 5th, 2007 (5/5/2007 1:46am) in reply to NevadaRick

    The UIGEA is about setting up provisions to stop the U.S. financial institutions from funding gambling sites. I don't believe it says anything about making online poker illegal. If your state doesn't specifically outlaw online poker, it is within your right to play.
  3. NevadaRick NevadaRick is offline

    Wells, NV
    United States

    Posts: 698
    Joined: Aug 05

    May 5th, 2007 (5/5/2007 1:48am) in reply to computerb

    I understand that but imo with the provisions stopping us financial institutions from allowing transactions between the accounts in their banks and gambling sites affects players from making a living is kinda where i was going with that one....:)
    Thread Starter
  4. Pyramid Pyramid is offline

    United States

    Posts: 536
    Joined: Jun 05

    May 5th, 2007 (5/5/2007 2:01am) in reply to NevadaRick

    There are alot more relevant constitutional infringements then internet gambling. Really....
  5. NevadaRick NevadaRick is offline

    Wells, NV
    United States

    Posts: 698
    Joined: Aug 05

    May 5th, 2007 (5/5/2007 2:21am) in reply to Pyramid

    Of course the biggest issue is now the government is telling us where we can and can't spend our hard earned money.
    Thread Starter
  6. Fox Fox is offline

    Posts: 2,686
    Joined: Apr 05

    May 5th, 2007 (5/5/2007 2:40am) in reply to NevadaRick

    Your idea that this violates the constitution is a good one, but politicians in America could give two shits about the constitution. Our only hope is to buy congressmen and Senators by the dozen, something that we could afford to do if the big sites decide to step up.
  7. NevadaRick NevadaRick is offline

    Wells, NV
    United States

    Posts: 698
    Joined: Aug 05

    May 5th, 2007 (5/5/2007 2:45am) in reply to Fox

    I wonder what would happen if the poker sites took the guidelines that Barney Frank had in his amendment to the gambling bill and instituted them on their poker sites. I wonder if that would change any views about online gambling.......nah probably not but would be interesting to see what would happen if poker sites made these changes!!
    Thread Starter
  8. baughman baughman is offline

    Cincinnati, OH
    United States

    Posts: 9,648
    Joined: Jan 06

    May 5th, 2007 (5/5/2007 3:22am) in reply to NevadaRick

    pokersites are foriegn run. So cant directly lobby agianst our problems in america.
  9. Mr. Smith Mr. Smith is offline

    FM
    United States

    Posts: 2,273
    Joined: Apr 07

    May 5th, 2007 (5/5/2007 4:48am) in reply to baughman

    The 14th Amendment is known for the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses and was originally passed to augment the 13th Amendment which ended slavery. While there is the "privileges and immunities" section of the Amendment i think it would be an interpretive leap to connect this with on-line poker legislation. The 14th Amendment is malleable, but i think it would take one hell of a lawyer to argue on-line poker legislation is a plausible violation of the Amendment.
  10. phish42O phish42O is offline

    Houston, TX
    United States

    Posts: 3,728
    Joined: Jun 06

    May 5th, 2007 (5/5/2007 2:43pm) in reply to NevadaRick

    Actually, the answer to your question is:

    First, the 14th Amendment applies to state action. You would analyze this issue under the 5th amendment which protects you from the federal government.

    However, both clauses are virtually the same and have been interpretted in the same manner by the courts.

    Finally, legislation that is not facially discrimanatory and that does not violate a fundamental right only has to pass a "rational basis" test. Poker players are not a discrete and insular minority, nor is there any evidence of past discrimination. Therefore, the statute is facially nuetral. Playing poker is not a fundamental right. Although one may attempt to correlate playing poker in your home to a privacy right, this argument will likely fail.

    Therefore, the government only has to meet the rational basis test. The legislation has to be "rationally related" to a "legitimate state interest." The burden of proof is on the individual in this case. The courts will defer to the legislature. Under this test, the government wins. It sucks.
Reply to Thread