Texas Poker Act
Paulc...@aol.com
It is HB 3186, sponsored by Jose Menenedez (D, San Antonio).
Home poker has always been legal, as long as nobody collects a fee
(rake or seat charge). This bill would allow commercial operators to
charge a fee. It would also allow charitable poker tournaments.
Texas residents - contact your state representative to voice your
support for this bill.
Full text of the bill: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/pdf/HB03186I.pdf
Bill Starr
Hope it passes but knowing our great lawmakers, I am not going to count on it.
Bill
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
CheckRazor
Me too. It could change my whole retirement strategy. Given the fact
that my entire family lives in Texas, I could almost see myself
relocating there if there was actually something to do.
I know that this is the center of George W.Bush (dumbass) country, but
sooner or later the powers that be in Texas will see how much money in
tax dollars are leaving the state to places like Oklahoma, New Mexico
and Louisiana.
mrtnfisher
CheckRazor
> Doesn't Federal law supercede state regulations??
No.
Kent Briggs
> Doesn't Federal law supercede state regulations??
There are no federal laws outlawing poker. How do you think they play in
Las Vegas, Nevada, among other places?
--
Kent Briggs, kbr...@spamcop.net
Briggs Softworks, http://www.briggsoft.com
Gary Carson
On Mar 9 2007 9:30 PM, mrtnfisher wrote:
> Doesn't Federal law supercede state regulations??
There was a dispute in the 1860's that resulted in a firmly estabished precedent
that state regulations became the prevailing law of the land whenever there was
a conflict. I recall my US History prof at LSU covering the topic extensively.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
James L. Hankins
"Gary Carson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:1173508975$965...@recpoker.com...
>
>
>
> On Mar 9 2007 9:30 PM, mrtnfisher wrote:
>
>> Doesn't Federal law supercede state regulations??
>
> There was a dispute in the 1860's that resulted in a firmly estabished
> precedent
> that state regulations became the prevailing law of the land whenever
> there was
> a conflict. I recall my US History prof at LSU covering the topic
> extensively.
??????
State law never prevails over federal law when there is a conflict via the
supremacy clause. Federal statutes sometimes cede authority to the states
in some areas but that is a matter of federal cession of its own authority,
not state law supremacy.
I can't think of any exceptions to this (one of the few things in the law
not subject to an exception).
Gary Carson
On Mar 10 2007 1:29 AM, James L. Hankins wrote:
> "Gary Carson" wrote in message
I don't think you quite understand how American History is taught in Places like
Louisiana or South Carolina. Ever heard of "The War of Northern Aggression"?
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
James L. Hankins
>
>
>
> On Mar 10 2007 1:29 AM, James L. Hankins wrote:
>
>> "Gary Carson" wrote in message
>> news:1173508975$965...@recpoker.com...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mar 9 2007 9:30 PM, mrtnfisher wrote:
>> >
>> >> Doesn't Federal law supercede state regulations??
>> >
>> > There was a dispute in the 1860's that resulted in a firmly estabished
>> > precedent
>> > that state regulations became the prevailing law of the land whenever
>> > there was
>> > a conflict. I recall my US History prof at LSU covering the topic
>> > extensively.
>>
>>
>>
>> ??????
>>
>> State law never prevails over federal law when there is a conflict via
>> the
>> supremacy clause. Federal statutes sometimes cede authority to the states
>> in some areas but that is a matter of federal cession of its own
>> authority,
>> not state law supremacy.
>>
>> I can't think of any exceptions to this (one of the few things in the law
>> not subject to an exception).
>
> I don't think you quite understand how American History is taught in
> Places like
> Louisiana or South Carolina. Ever heard of "The War of Northern
> Aggression"?
Au contrare. My wife is from Louisiana and I've been going down there
visiting her kin for the last 20+ years. I'm an Okie and her mother
referred to me as the "damn yankee" who married her daughter (only half
joking) while straightening her Gone With The Wind figurines in there glass
case many times. My in-laws live in northern Louisiana but have friends
from way down south. When they are in town it's something to see. Southern
Louisiana truly is a different mindset than any other place.
Randy Hudson
James L. Hankins <jhan...@cox.net[no spam]> wrote:
> State law never prevails over federal law when there is a conflict via the
> supremacy clause. Federal statutes sometimes cede authority to the states
> in some areas but that is a matter of federal cession of its own authority,
> not state law supremacy.
The Tenth Amendment to the US Consitution states:
| The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
| prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
| or to the people.
So, Federal supremacy holds only where the Constitution reserves powers to
the Federal government alone, such as coining money or granting patents.
Now, one such power granted to the Federal government is the power to
regulate interstate commerce. So, when Congress passes a law regulating
interstate commerce, state laws that conflict with that are superceded.
And, where necessary, the government has stretched that interpretation a
long way. For example, the early-1960s Civil Rights Act prohibited
whites-only areas in diners, and based that Federal supercession of contrary
state laws on the Commerce clause, because diners served people who might be
travelling interstate.
--
Randy Hudson
Gary Carson
On Mar 10 2007 2:11 AM, James L. Hankins wrote:
I'm an Okie and her mother
> referred to me as the "damn yankee" who married her daughter (only half
> joking) while straightening her Gone With The Wind figurines
My grandmother, who grew up in Seagraves Texas (in the Panhandle) thought Okies
were all yankees. The ties of the Confederacy are strong.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
phlash74
> In article <L7tIh.15431$907.6...@newsfe13.phx>,
Excellent point. The feds have been cracking down on states passing
medical marijuana laws for the same reason. The SC has been quite
reluctant to limit federal power even though the Constitution pretty
strictly limits it to the powers explicitly granted. Even though the
UIGEA explicitly allows for intrastate online gaming in states that
already allow a particular form of gambling (e.g. sports betting in
Nevada or poker in NV, CA, MS or any state with a legal cardroom)
there isn't a rush to set up sites because the states are afraid to
piss off the feds.
Michael
CheckRazor
>
> My grandmother, who grew up in Seagraves Texas (in the Panhandle) thought Okies
> were all yankees. The ties of the Confederacy are strong.
I used to have a good friend from Seagraves. (I grew up in Lubbock).
People in Texas think everybody not from Texas is a yankee. In their
eyes I became a yankee many years ago when I moved to Colorado.(lost
the accent)
Gary Carson
Ah, Lubbock. I've got kin from there, Abernathy, O'Donnel, Hobbs, etc.
It's not the end of the world, but ........
On Mar 10 2007 1:13 PM, CheckRazor wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2:11 am, Gary Carson
> >
> > My grandmother, who grew up in Seagraves Texas (in the Panhandle) thought
> > Okies
> > were all yankees. The ties of the Confederacy are strong.
>
> I used to have a good friend from Seagraves. (I grew up in Lubbock).
> People in Texas think everybody not from Texas is a yankee. In their
> eyes I became a yankee many years ago when I moved to Colorado.(lost
> the accent)
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Susan
"Gary Carson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:1173557007$965...@recpoker.com...
CheckRazor
wrote:
> Ah, Lubbock. I've got kin from there, Abernathy, O'Donnel, Hobbs, etc.
>
> It's not the end of the world, but ........
>
James L. Hankins
"Randy Hudson" <i...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ests8k$bd8$1...@reader2.panix.com...
I understand all that. The Tenth Amendment is federal law and it, too, like
all other federal authority, trumps state law. Every time with no
exceptions.
Even federal agencies who make regulations have "trumping" authority over
the states. It's not even a debatable point.
DELETETHIS
Gary Carson
On Mar 11 2007 1:15 PM, DELETETHIS wrote:
> there is no federal law against gambling
Actually, there is. Moslty limited to sports betting.
>
> mrtnfisher wrote:
> > Doesn't Federal law supercede state regulations??
> >
> >
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
jd00123
On Mar 11 2007 7:05 PM, Gary Carson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mar 11 2007 1:15 PM, DELETETHIS wrote:
>
> > there is no federal law against gambling
>
> Actually, there is. Moslty limited to sports betting.
>
>
> >
> > mrtnfisher wrote:
> > > Doesn't Federal law supercede state regulations??
> > >
> > >
> Gary Carson
> http://www.garycarson.com
>
>
We could declare it null and void............
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com