Emanuel is Allowed on the Ballot

I agree with today's Supreme Court decision on residency. It is nearly impossible to argue that our residency requirement was intended to keep a candidate like Rahm Emanuel off the ballot. (here's my 1,500 analysis from yesterday)

However, I take issue with the tone of the majority opinion as well as that of most op-ed’s I’ve read on the matter. According to the Supreme Court majority, the Appellate court “tossed out 150 years of settled residency law”, and “what it means to be a resident for election purposes was clearly established long ago, and Illinois law has been consistent on the matter since at least the 19^th Century.”

These statements are false.

The Illinois statute at the center of this controversy lists two requirements for a candidate’s eligibility to run for office: 1) the candidate must be a “qualified elector of the municipality” (meaning he is allowed to vote in the municipality) and 2) the candidate must have “resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election” (this is the section in dispute)

The meaning of “resides in” – that was affirmed today – is that residency requires, 1) physical presence, and 2) an intent to remain in that place as a permanent home. Once residency is established, the test it no longer physical presence but rather abandonment. The presumption is that residency continues, and the burden of proof shifts to the contesting party to show that residency has been abandoned. (Meaning Rahm Emanuel had established residency in Chicago prior to leaving for DC, and anyone contesting his eligibility is required to prove he had no intention of returning to Chicago – that he had “abandoned” his residency.)

However, if this interpretation of the residency requirement “was clearly established long ago, and Illinois law has been consistent on the matter since at least the 19^th Century” then the Supreme Court should also take issue with our State Legislature.

In 2007, Senator Dave Luechtfield introduced an exception to the residency requirement. The exception – which was approved unanimously – provided that a person is exempt from the one-year requirement if his/her residency is interrupted by active duty in the military.

When presenting the bill to the General Assembly, Senator Luechtfield said, “A situation occurred in my district where an individual was in Iraq… he came back, wanted to run for municipal office, but did not meet the one year residency requirement. This would simply allow them to come back to the same district, same ward, and run as if they had been there.”

If Illinois law establishing residency was as well settled as the Supreme Court presumes it to have been, then why on Earth would our legislature add an exception to it that is completely redundant?

Under no circumstances would military servicemen who left the state temporarily while on active duty, be accused of abandoning their residency according to our 150 year old “clearly established” law. So why would Senator Luechtfield and his brethren feel the need to add an exception for them?

Perhaps because the law wasn’t so clearly established.

Explaining the Technicalities of the Rahm Emanuel Appellate Court Majority Opinion in under 1,500 words

Disclaimer – This post will only focus on the details of the majority’s statutory interpretation. I am ignoring case law because the two sides disagree vehemently on it (the majority found it contradictory and not controlling, the dissent found the opposite.) The newspaper articles I read on the decision only explained its general conclusions, but I wanted to see how the court came to its conclusion, so I read the opinion. This post summarizes the guts of that opinion. (Not everyone will consider this pleasure reading)

Disclaimer 2 – I have no opinion on who should be Chicago’s next mayor.

Disclaimer 3 – The sections in italics are my own tangents and were not discussed in the opinion

Background –

Rahm Emanuel was born in Chicago and lived in the city for most of his adult life, he also represented the Illinois “fightin” Fifth District – which includes the north side of Chicago – in the U.S. House of Representatives. In January of 2009, Emanuel moved to Washington D.C. to serve as White House Chief of Staff and rented out his newly vacated Chicago home to a third party (but left many belongings in the basement.) In October of 2010 Emanuel resigned as Chief of Staff and moved back to Chicago to run for Mayor. He is currently polling at 44% (double that of his nearest opponent.)

Emanuel’s candidacy was challenged on the grounds that he is not a Chicago resident. The relevant statute is Illinois Municipal Code section 5/3.1-10-5, which states the following:

“A person is not eligible for an elective municipal office unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election…” (emphasis added)

Emanuel’s supporters essentially argue, “Of course he’s a resident. He was born and raised in Chicago, owns a home in Chicago, pays taxes in Chicago, intended to return to Chicago, and he only left Chicago temporarily to serve our country.”

Emanuel’s opponents’ response is, “We don’t disagree with what you say, but the law says he’s not eligible to run for mayor because he didn’t live in Chicago during the year preceding the election. And the law is the law.”

Emanuel’s opponents first argued their case to the Chicago Board of Elections and lost. They then argued to a Cook County Circuit Court and lost again. Finally, they argued to the Illinois Court of Appeals and won. So as of this writing, Emanuel is not allowed on the mayoral ballot because he violates the requirements of the Illinois Municipal Code. (Emanuel appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court – which is expected to rule on the case soon.)

The Majority’s Analysis –

The Illinois Municipal Code lists two requirements for a candidate’s eligibility: 1) the candidate must be a “qualified elector of the municipality” (meaning he is allowed to vote in the municipality) and 2) the candidate must have “resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election” (this is the section in dispute)

The requirements to be a “qualified elector” are listed in a separate election law statute, and are as follows: the person must 1) have resided in the election district for the 30 days preceding the election, 2) be a US citizen, and 3) and be 18 or older.

There is an exception to the 30-day residency requirement in the election law statute stating that (I’ll paraphrase) “No elector shall be deemed to have lost his/her residence in any election district in this State by reason of his/her absence on business of the United States.” (emphasis added)

Emanuel’s service as White House Chief of Staff qualifies as “business of the United States.” Therefore, the majority recognizes that he meets the requirements of being a “qualified elector.”

However, the second part of the Municipal Code states that in addition to being a qualified elector, the candidate must have “resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election.” And as we know, Emanuel did not live in Chicago during the preceding year.

There is an exception – listed in the Illinois Municipal Code itself – which states that a person is exempt from the one year requirement if his/her residency is interrupted by active duty in the military. Emanuel’s service as White House Chief of Staff does not fall under this exception.

Can Emanuel use the “business of the United States” exception to get out of the one year requirement? Probably not.

The “one year” requirement was added to the Illinois Municipal Code to further limit the “qualified elector” requirement. It extends the residency requirement from 30-days to one year, and it narrows the exception from any “business of the United States” to only “active duty military service.”

A look at the legislative intent of the military exception – added in 2007 – shows that when presenting the exception to the General Assembly for a vote, one of its co-sponsors explained, “A situation occurred in my district where an individual was in Iraq… he came back, wanted to run for municipal office, but did not meet the one year residency requirement. This would simply allow them to come back to the same district, same ward, and run as if they had been there.”

This insinuates that the soldier who went to Iraq could not use the “business of the United States” exception in the election law to avoid the “one year” requirement in the Illinois Municipal Code – which is why this Senator felt he needed to carve out a new exception for military personnel.

Does the fact that the Senator didn’t use the “business of the United States” language in his military exception mean he consciously meant to narrow the exception and exclude federal government employees like Emanuel? Or does it mean he simply wanted to add an exception for the military personnel in his district and didn’t give any thought to the “business of the United States” language in the election laws? (i.e. lazy drafting)

Or is it possible that the “business of the United States” in the election law exception was meant to apply to the one year requirement, which is why the municipal code takes the trouble to reference the “qualified elector” rule rather than simply saying the candidate has to be 18 or older and a U.S. Citizen?

To further its point, the majority attempts to determine the legislature’s meaning of the word “resided” as it was used in the Illinois Municipal Code by analyzing its use of the words “resides” and “resident” in the military exception. As you recall: the language of the Illinois Municipal Code was: “has resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the election.” And the controversy is over what they mean by “resided.”

Does Emanuel’s owning of a home and intent to return suffice as “resided”? Not according to the majority’s reading.

The majority believes that “resident” was used in the exception to describe legal residency, whereas “resides” was used to refer to having a physical presence (especially given the Senator’s explanation.) The exception is broken down into three parts. I’ll paraphrase them, but use the words “reside” and “resident” in context:

1 – If a person is a resident of a municipality prior to active duty, and

2 – if that person resides outside the municipality during active duty, then 

3 – if that person returns to the municipality upon completion of duty, then the time during which the person resides outside the municipality is deemed to be time that the person was a resident of the municipality for purposes of this statute.

If the definition of “resided” in main provision of the Illinois Municipal Code (“has resided in the municipality at least one year”) can be derived from the way that “resides” is used in the military exception, then it means that the candidate must have an actual physical presence in the city for the year prior to his candidacy. (A flaw in this reasoning could be that the exception was drafted by a different legislature long after the original rule was written.)

Another consideration of the majority was the legislative intent of this – or any – “reside in” requirement. The majority cites a 1901 Illinois Supreme Court opinion stating that the “reside in” requirement exists to ensure “that those who represent local units of government shall themselves be component parts of such units.” It further states that the “reside in” requirements “can only be truly served by requiring such representatives to be and remain actual residents of the units which they represent… A mere constructive resident has no better opportunities for knowing the wants and rightful demands of his constituents, than a non-resident, and is as much beyond the wholesome influence of direct contact with them.”

No surprises there. The legislature just wants the representative of a district to actually live there so he/she has a stake in its well-being.

My Conclusion –

There certainly isn’t any doubt that Emanuel is from Chicago, cares about Chicago, and fully intended to return to Chicago upon completion of his service as White House Chief of Staff. So does that mean he should be allowed on the ballot because he complies with the spirit of the law? Would not allowing him on the ballot be nothing more than the strict application of a legal technicality?

It is difficult to argue that the Illinois Municipal Code’s residency requirement was written to keep candidates like Emanuel off the ballot. But for many, it is just as difficult to say that a Court should have the right to expand the interpretation of such a clearly written statute. (Although, that happens every day.)

I think the Supreme Court will overrule the Appellate Court’s decision, but it will be interesting to see how they do it. Will they cite the case law from the lower courts used in the dissent? Or will they simply set the precedent themselves and expand the definition of “resides in”? 

the framers

The Supreme Court listened to a gun control argument for the first time in over 70 years when a District of Columbia resident recently argued that the City's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. Here's the wording of the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Those who believe that all citizens have the right to own a gun argue that the Second Amendment guarantees such a right. Those who believe otherwise argue that the Second Amendment does not provide an absolute right; they believe that the Second Amendment is archaic, and was simply meant to clarify another section of the Constitution that presumably gave Congress the power to disarm State militias -- which was very important in the 18th Century because State militias made up a significant portion of the US military.

You can read the entire oral argument here, although I understand if 100 pages of transcribed arguing is not your idea of leisure reading. (I actually kind of enjoyed it.)


The Court must determine whether the D.C. handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. But after reading the transcript, it struck me that more than half of the argument was spent comparing 1780 to the present. Much of time was spent haggling over the meaning of the "well regulated militia" language.

Is it a limiting clause? Does the comma bifurcate the Amendment? Or is it simply there to remind people of one of the many purposes of the amendment? Or perhaps the language was added to honor the militia (an argument that the attorney representing the gun lobby ACTUALLY MADE on page 57.)

This eventually led to a very strange line of reasoning. At one point the attorney arguing on behalf of the gun lobby argued, "the handgun ban serves to weaken America's military preparedness." Then, ~100 words later, he argued that machine guns should be banned because "it's not an arm of the type that people might be expected to possess commonly in ordinary use."

(It didn't make sense to me either)

To resolve his apparent contradiction, he went on to argue that the framers intended for civilians -- if needed for militia duties -- to "bring arms supplied by themselves of the kind in common use at the time." He continued, "So at the present time, if people do not have, or are not recognized by any court to have, a common application for, say, a machine gun or a rocket launcher" their Second Amendment rights do not apply.

However, in the 1700's, he concedes, "the civilian arms were pretty much the sort that were used in the military." (and that is certainly not the case today)

So his argument was that if the U.S. is invaded by a foreign army, civilians are expected to defend themselves with arms of common civilian use (or those suitable for military use in the 1700's.)

Ok, so let's get this straight: if a powerful foreign army has defeated the entire United States Military -- and its full arsenal of machine guns, tanks, fighter jets, bombers, predator drones, laser guided missiles, and weapons of mass destruction -- civilians are expected to take up the defense with handguns and rifles.

What are we going to do with handguns? Melt them down and make machine guns?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a strict anti-gun person. I don't have a strong opinion on the subject either way. But some of these arguments are actually being made in front of the Supreme Court of the United States!!

I understand the general argument of the gun lobby. I really do. If criminals and local police officers are carrying guns, the average citizen should have the right to own one as well.


The Supreme Court's role is to determine whether laws are in accordance with the Constitution. However, the Constitution is vague. It is not an actual body of law as much as it is simply a framework. Yet even today, several Supreme Court Justices insist that their judicial philosophy is based on trying to determine the intent of the Framers. "How would the framers of the Constitution feel about this gun law?"

This theme was the prevalent for the first two thirds of the handgun argument.

How ridiculous did it get? Amongst other things, the argument touched on points such as politics between the federalists and anti-federalists, peasants' rights in 17th century England, the Blackstone Commentaries, Joseph Story, and guns as protection from Native Americans, wolves, bears, outlaws and tyrants.

There was even a short discussion about the English Bill of Rights in 1689 being applicable only to Protestants, and how the Scottish and Roman Catholics were forbidden from bearing arms, which at the time was considered a form of oppression -- thus our citizens will be oppressed if forbidden from bearing arms today.


So back to the original question, what would our Founding Fathers think about this handgun ban?

I don't know, and frankly, I'm not sure I'd base all of my philosophical decisions on the opinion of a group of men who used ink on the Constitution to honor our state militias, but not ban slavery.

Not to mention, they wore long blonde wigs to work every day.

job v. work

My entry into the workforce began at the age of 15, at a pool across the street from my parents’ house. It was a painless job. My responsibilities were limited to working at the front desk and the concession stand, and the best part was that if I had to be at work by 10:00 am, my alarm clock could be set for 9:58, and I’d still be there early.

Besides the occasional 20 minutes of dishwashing at night, the job was simple. People at the pool were usually in a good mood, and my friends would hang out there all the time, plus I only worked 20 hours a week, so I had little to complain about. Of course, the experience of working at a pool could have been more fulfilling had I been better looking or had some semblance of game. But then again, the experience of going to high school could have been more fulfilling had I been better looking or had some semblance of game.

At the time, my mom worked as a bank teller, and one of her regular customers was a local attorney (I’ll call him Will.) One day Will mentioned to my mom that he needed someone to work for him. Knowing that I was a big Matlock and Night Court fan, combined with the fact that although my teachers constantly complained about me, they always suggested that I go to law school because of my skilled arguing when trying to avoid punishment, my mom thought I might like the job.

As my second summer at the pool was coming to an end, my mom told me about the opportunity to work for Will. She mentioned that he wanted someone who was a good writer, and that got my attention. I wasn’t a good writer, but I had just won an award for a story that I’d written for my school newspaper, so at least I could pretend I was a good writer. (The story was about the varsity men's basketball team. (I knew a lot of the players, so they gave me permission to take liberties with their quotes.) The story cemented me as a sports writer for the paper, and essentially began the end of my interest in journalism. Sports writing for a high school paper isn't all glamour and glitz. Three straight issues of writing in depth about girls’ basketball is too much for even the most dedicated young male journalist.)

Working for Will sounded kind of fun to me, so told my mom that I’d do it. Will called me in for an interview shortly thereafter.

When I arrived at his office, his secretary told me to wait for a few minutes until he was ready. Will's door was open, so I could see right into his office. Up to that point in my life the only attorneys I’d ever seen were Ben Matlock, Dan Fielding, and Christine Sullivan, so I was eager to peek in and watch him operate.

The first thing I noticed was that he never picked up his phone. Don’t get me wrong, he was talking on the phone the entire time, but he was always on speakerphone. Sometimes he worked on other things while talking, but most of the time he just had both hands on the back of his head.

His voice was loud, and he was aggressive. I couldn’t make out who he was talking to, but when orders were given, he was the one giving them. If conversations were like ballroom dancing, Will was leading. Every time. I was already beginning to feel intimidated as he called me in. (I was a sarcastic, insecure, 5’9, 110lb, dark-skinned kid. I couldn't imagine the two of us hitting it off.)

I quickly learned that Will was a loud talker in general. We sat no more than four feet from eachother, but I could have been outside behind a closed window with a construction crew working behind me and still heard every word he said. I started to think that maybe he spoke to everyone as if he was talking to them on speakerphone. Maybe the speakerphone talking was practice for being loud in person.

Will might have been a nice guy, but I wouldn’t have known. He wasn’t mean at all, but he certainly wasn’t pleasant. He talked fast, with very little bullshit. He seemed like a guy who knew what “exchanging pleasantries” entailed, but was consciously trying to avoid them. Most adults I’d met up to that point in my life would sit around and bullshit with me for a few minutes before cutting to the chase. But my interview with Will went like this:

(I walk in)

Will – Have a seat. So your mom tells me you’re a good writer.

Me – Yeah, I won an award for a story I wrote last year, and so our class got a field trip..

Will – (Interrupting) Ok, that’s great. Word Perfect. Word Perfect is important. It’s huge right now. You know how to use Word Perfect?

Me – Yeah, I took a class in it last year, I…

Will – (Interrupting) Good. You’ve gotta know Word Perfect these days. Do you have a car? (he does a 180 in his chair, so now he’s got his back to me)

Me – Well, its my dad’s old car, but I can use it.

Will – because I’m going to need you to run some stuff to court for me. Can you start tomorrow?

Me – Yeah, what…

Will – (Spins his chair back around and faces me) Ok, I can give you $6 an hour, I’ll see you tomorrow at 9.

Me – Ok, I’ll see you tomorrow.

(I got up and left, no handshake)

I was confused. My interview for the pool job was 45 minutes long! We discussed school, my extra-curricular activities, my likes, dislikes, the responsibilities of the job and more. But Will might have had me in and out of his office in under a minute.

A small part of me was glad because I didn’t have to tell him that I got a “D” in my Word Perfect class in high school (which was especially ironic because it was the only time I got less than "B" in a high school class.) And $6 an hour was a big bump from $4.45 at the pool. But I was worried about how his “no nonsense” personality was going to mesh with my “predominately nonsense” personality. My excitement level had decreased significantly.

The next morning I showed up for work at 9am sharp, his secretary showed me to my workspace. Will’s office was the first floor of a big renovated house, so I got my own room. He was a successful attorney, so everything had been rehabbed to the point where I forgot I was in a house. And I was happy about getting my own ‘office’.

Will came in right away and directed my attention to three big boxes on the floor. The boxes were full of documents; it was my job to put them all in chronological order and flag the important ones. Simple enough.

By 10:15 I was asleep.

Flipping through those documents was killing me. It was a personal injury case that had been going on for years, so half of the documents were motions and court papers. The other half were medical reports. I didn’t know what any of it meant, so I had to read it all to try and determine if it was important enough to flag. I was bored and confused.

By 10:45 I was looking for something else to do. I asked the secretary if Will had left me any other work, so she gave me some papers to deliver to the courthouse. I was relieved.

Both of my parents’ cars were pieces of shit. I took my mom’s van that day, a brown, 1986 Plymouth Voyager with spotty air conditioning. The only thing worse than the 30 minute drive to the courthouse without A/C, was the 45 minute drive back to the office without A/C but with an increase in traffic and temperature. I had half a mind to ask Will if he'd let me take his Cadillac next time. (slightly less than half)

I picked up some lunch and ate it in my office. The entire time, the boxes of documents stared at me ominously, like a 200lb girl whose house I’d drunkenly left my wallet. I didn’t want to go back there, but I knew I had to.

As I was putting papers in chronological order I realized that if he had me doing grunt work like this, he certainly wasn’t going to let me write anything important. I was a naïve kid. So naïve that I actually had visions of helping him with closing arguments and cross examinations. I really did. It wasn’t until my first day that I realized he only wanted me to know Word Perfect so I could type out the notes he was dictating in his office.

I learned that 9 to 5 in an office, was quite different from 12 to 6 at a pool.

Thankfully, I had to work at the pool the next day, so I let Will know that I couldn’t come in to work. He told me to call him on Monday and we’d figure out my hours for the next week.

I never spoke to him again.

Today was my first day working as a licensed attorney. Its a temporary job for a Chicago law firm.

Guess at what I was doing all day?

Karma is a bitch.

"Terms and Conditions"

Whenever I sign in to “blogger”, I'm asked to update to the new Google blogger edition. I always answer “no" because I don't need any of the new features. Plus, its kind of scary to think about how dominant Google Inc. has become in the internet market, combined with the fact that they store all of your searches and internet activity.

But for some reason, today I decided to give it a try. After entering my username and password, I was asked to accept the “Terms of Service.”

(I love it when "Terms of Service" are short. Not only short, but they're written to be read by actual people. (as opposed to their attorneys) I signed up for something once where the Terms were just 5 bullet point items. and they were written like this; "Don't make copies and sell this software. We won't distribute any of your personal information. etc." It was the information that a reasonable user could read and would want to know.)

So anyway, I was curious to see how long the "Google Blogger" terms were, so I clicked on them. Within those terms, were additional links to the “terms and conditions”, “privacy policy”, and “content policy” among others. I clicked on most of the major links, and cut and paste the contents into Word.

The result; 18 and a half single spaced pages in 10 pt font.

These were two of my favorite clauses at the beginning:

Google may, in its sole discretion, modify or revise these Terms of Service and policies at any time, and you agree to be bound by such modifications or revisions.

Although we may attempt to notify you when major changes are made to these Blogger Terms of Service, you should periodically review the most up-to-date version.

So what if,,, beginning next month, Google starts charging $1,000 a month for the Blogger service, and fails to notify me of the change? A year from now I get a bill for $12,000.

I guess I'm legally bound.

Guitar Tab

Last night I was playing guitar with a couple of friends. Our play-list included some Nirvana and Tenacious D. (we played our one original song too) (which by the way is on a CD that can be bought in a store, but probably impossible to find) (I sing lead on that song too) One of my favorite Tenacious D songs is called “Double Team”, but last night I couldn’t figure out how to play it. So I was sitting there playing a few notes, trying find the first one. JP noticed me searching for it, so he said to me, “Its an E minor.”

I strummed an E minor. He was right. Then he said, “next it goes to a C.”

I strummed an E minor, then a C. He was right again. From that point I remembered how the song went, and we played the rest. (just to emphasize, it’s a great song)

Did JP break the law last night?

Websites, that essentially do what JP did for me last night are now being threatened with legal action. The Music Publishers’ Association is accusing guitar tab websites of copyright infringement. The biggest US guitar tab websites have already shut down. (there are still plenty out there)

Tab (short for tablature), is a way for people who can’t read sheet music (like me) to see how a song is played by diagramming the finger positioning on the guitar. Guitar tab websites do two things: 1) allow users to post their interpretation of how a song is played in the form of “guitar tab”, and 2) allow other users to view these tabs. According to Music Publishers, this is the same as stealing copyrighted sheet music.

According to me, the Music Publishers are idiots. Is the bad PR they’re going to get for this actually worth the money they hope to make selling sheet music? Who buys the sheet music for rock songs anyway?

It's one thing if webmasters were making profits from these sites, but they’re just running the sites to be an open forum. They’re showing people how to play a song, just like JP did last night.

Here's an article on it.

Tension in the Pakistani National Assembly

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and his political allies have sparked controversy by recently passing a bill that was strongly opposed by the third largest group in their National Assembly. Opposition leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman said, “This bill is against the Holy Koran. We will reject it and try to block it in any possible manner.”

The bill is so controversial that Rehman and his allies responded to its introduction by tearing up copies and storming out of a recent parliament meeting. Some chanted, “death to Musharraf” and “Allah is great.”

What's the big deal?

Most bills are met with political opposition, and fundamental Muslims aren't exactly known for their desire to appease ideological opponents -- but this one is a bit different. The bill that the Pakistani government just passed -- the same bill that united Rehman and his brethren in such passionate opposition -- is called the “Protection of Women” bill.

Before the Protection of Women bill, rape victims in Pakistan were required to produce four male witnesses in order to meet the burden of proof for a conviction --- and here come four words you’d never expect to follow that last sentence --- And that’s not all.

Before the bill, if a woman pressed charges for rape, but was unable to meet the "four male" burden of proof, she could then be prosecuted for adultery. As of this March there were over 4,600 women in Pakistani prisons awaiting trial for adultery. The former rape law (requiring the four witnesses) was one of a set of decrees known as the Hudood ordinance, that went into effect in 1979.

Reading this begs the obvious question; Has there been a single rape conviction in Pakistan since 1979?

I was thinking about the legislature’s intent when passing the Hudood laws. Did the discussion amongst Pakistani lawmakers in 1979 sound like this?

Senator 1 – “Look, I want to legalize rape as much as everyone else, but I think women should be raped behind closed doors. We don’t want to see rapes in public places. All of that screaming and commotion will be distracting to people trying to do business in the streets. And rapes may draw a lot of onlookers, and that'll slow down traffic in busier cities.”

Senator 2 – “So why not require the woman to produce four witnesses to the rape in order to convict? That’ll get people to do it behind closed doors.”

Senator 1 – “Make it four ‘male’ witnesses... just in case.”

Senator 3 – “Call it punishable adultery if she can’t produce the four male witnesses and you’ve got my support.”

(source)
(source)
(source)

Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act

The new internet gambling bill prohibits foreign gambling websites from accepting payments from U.S. residents. This means I can no longer play those little $2 and $5 online poker tournaments I like so much.

But I shouldn't worry about that because:
1) I can still go the track and bet my life savings on horse racing (or dog racing),
2) I can still go to the gas station and buy as many lottery tickets as my bank account can afford,
3) I can still play poker, but now I have to go to a licensed casino to do it, and
4) I can still fill out some paperwork and buy a shotgun (Ok, that’s not as directly related, but it always makes me laugh.) (The government is essentially saying, “We don’t think you’re responsible enough to control your online gambling, but we’ll go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to handling firearms.”)

Last year online gambling brought in ~$13 billion in revenue, and that's projected to jump to $25.2 billion in 2010. (source) I think this number would be much higher if sports books in the US were allowed to do business online. Even back when foreign online sports books could accept US deposits, a lot of my friends were afraid to open online accounts because they didn’t trust their money in the hands of a sports book operating from a small Caribbean Island. So instead, they went through a local bookie -- a bookie who would honor point-spreads published in the local paper, a bookie who wouldn’t check his customers’ credit, but a bookie who would make his own rules when it came to debt collection.

If US based websites were legal, our government could tax their income. And collection could be done using legal methods. And perhaps even some legitimate establishments would create some sort of credit check system that would allow them to calculate an individual's betting limit.

And it's difficult to make the argument that the government wants people to stop gambling. I think that people who want to gamble can gamble. But if studies show that legalizing internet gambling in the US will increase the number of gamblers, and therefore increase the number of people with gambling problems, then go ahead and make it illegal. I don’t necessarily agree, but I don't vehemently disagree either.

But here’s the part that really gets me:

Two and a half years ago I went to a casino in downtown Detroit. In case you’ve never been to downtown Detroit: it is poor. Extremely poor. (And you see about as many white people in downtown Detroit as you see black people at an Ivy League swim meet.) My girlfriend’s dad works at the casino, so we went there to say hi and walk around. (and maybe I’d throw a few bucks down on the tables for laughs.)

I was definitely surprised to see such a grand casino in such a low income neighborhood. And I was even more surprised to see so many people gambling so early on a Saturday afternoon.

I knew the standard blackjack betting strategy, and I had big regular paychecks coming in, so I walked over to the blackjack tables and I couldn’t believe what I saw.

$15 minimum bet!

Even when I played blackjack at the Bellagio I was sitting at $10 tables, yet there I was, in arguably the poorest American city I’d ever seen, in a casino packed with its residents, and the cheapest table in the house had a $15 minimum bet!! I was stupefied. I sat down for a minute (one actual minute), played four hands, and lost $60. (my losing doesn’t influence my opinion on gambling, I just thought it was funny that I lost so fast that day)

Before the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, a person who wanted to play blackjack could turn on his computer and play $1 hands online. Now, if a Detroit resident wants to play blackjack, Federal law prohibits him from playing online. But, if he wants to walk over to the local casino and play $15 minimum hands, the Federal Government is surprisingly tolerant.