Honor Indian Treaties - Get Involved

http://www.honorindiantreaties.com/act/ ^

[Chad Fairbanks]

Well, right off the bat you use the term "myth", and claim it has been debunked. If you'd care to actually post proof that this is a "myth" that has been "debunked", feel free to share. You said "There is no evidence that Madison, or any of the other framers of the constitution, was even aware of the iroquois nation, let alone influenced by it". However, there is plenty of evidence. To cite a few examples:

"It would be a very strange thing if Six Nations of Ignorant Savages should be capable of forming a Scheme for such an Union and be able to execute it in such a manner, as that it has subsisted Ages, and appears indissoluble, and yet a like union should be impracticable for ten or a dozen English colonies." - Ben Franklin

"The only condition on earth to be compared with ours is that of the Indians, where they still have less law than we." - Thomas Jefferson, speaking of the Iroquois COnfederacy during the Constitutional Convention

"The fact is, that the condition of millions, in every country in Europe, is far worse than if they had been born before civilization began, or had been born among the Indians of North-America at the present day." - Thomas Paine, who was well aware of the Iroquois Confederacy, and wrote at length about them...

William Livingston, of New Jersey, spent at least a year, maybe more, living among the Mohawk (Iroquois) as a teenager - so, I'm pretty certain he would have been familiar with their system...

It is undisputed that Iroquoian leaders were present during, and participated in, debates when teh Declaration of Independence was in process...

I';ll have more examples later...

[IYAS9YAS]

As of February 2003, my data was correct in that the idaho tribal governments remit fuel sales taxes to the state, and receive none back. Als, keep in mind that the major users of roads on the reservations are non-indians. I suppose if you'd really like to push it, they can start charging your farmers a "use tax" for access to use of the roads instead - but then, food costs would go up. Be careful what you wish for.

The major users of the roads are non-Indians, we already established that. The tribes do not pay for maintenance of the roads on their land, with the exception of 43 miles of mostly dirt road on the Sho-Ban reservation. That is fact from the Idaho Trans Dept.

Also, per a legal stipulation as of March of 2002, no fuel tax money has been remitted to the state on any fuel sold to a retail outlet on the reservations. Your Feb 2003 data is not completely correct. Again, yes the tribes sent the money in the past. However, who ultimately paid the tax??? The person who bought it from the retailer. The tribe paid zilch. The tribe no more paid that money than did any other retailer in the state. The consumer paid it and more than 90% of the tribe's customers statewide were non-indians. The money collected by a retailer in Boise doesn't come back to that street or Boise itself, it goes into the big pot for all of Idaho.

[Henrietta]

You wrote: "Well, for one thing, most (as in 90% at least) indians pay federal and state income taxes, so try a different argument."

No, income earned on reservations is not subject to federal income tax. I, however, must pay tax on my worldwide income, regardless of where it is earned. I think this is unfair. Again, I think Indians should choose whether they want to be US Citizens, and subject to the same rules as the rest of us, or be Indians. But one should not be able to have both.



You wrote: "AS for the free college, I guess we'll just have to take away all those pell grants and such they give you you white people while we are at it, eh? Since it's "not fair"."

Indians are eligible for Pell Grants, just like everyone else, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. Additionally, Indians receive, under affirmative action programs, preferential treatment for admissions to our institutions of higher education.

You wrote: "Why should we indians enjoy some freedom if you white people are so willing to give away your own?"

Yeah, Indians have been leading the fight for our Constitutional freedoms, all right! It seems to me that the only time Indians as a group are interested in the Constitution is when their treaty rights are at stake, and to hell with that document otherwise. So you'll forgive me if I don't feel too much sympathy for the "plight" of Indians so far as their treaty rights are concerned.

[Henrietta]

Thank you for your sarcastic comment. I don't know why you bothered, as it added nothing to the discussion.

[Henrietta]

"Why should we support further erosions of personal liberty and freedoms, rather than reverse it and get back to support of the constitution as written? I say rather than continually look for freedoms to steal, our government should give back the freedoms already stolen from everyone!"

I totally agree. But sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[1Old Pro]

If the tribes want to have their "sovereign" status, why not do things this way: If someone goes onto a reservation to buy cigarettes, on the way out, have a state "customs" checkpoint and charge them the import tax.

Or just end the tax on cigarettes and liquor and make gambling legal.

[Henrietta]

"My point is this; I have little time for racial entitlements. The fact that someone who now calls himself a Native American is descended from someone who was screwed just makes him equal to the rest of us. There is long standing title to reservation lands, and there are titles spelling out specific obligations of the federal goverment. These should be settled with the present tribal members, as individuals. What they collectively do with the land and the money is their own business. But I want no part of a country where you and I are subject to different laws or obligations, because of our different ancestry."

I couldn't agree with you more. You have summed up my feelings quite succinctly.

[Henrietta]

"Unfortunately, the fact that conservatives don't is one of the reasons that indians have become a huge democrat voting block over the years... but we could change that."

I think that the reason why Indians vote Democrat is because of all the free goodies that the Dems promise them. It's the same reason many other "welfare mentality" cultures vote Dem.

[Chad Fairbanks]

I don't see how the Gas Stations on Reservation Land are any different than a gas station off reservation land. They both collect taxes, paid by the customer, and remit it to the state. I see no unfair competitive advantage... So, what are you REALLY mad about?

[Chad Fairbanks]

Yeah, Indians have been leading the fight for our Constitutional freedoms, all right!

Well, I know that I have, but obviously the same can't be said for you.

[CSM]

So let's throw our support towards the Indians and not to the government taxation scheme. Then your claim could support less taxation and gains of deserved liberty!

[Arkinsaw]

Thank you for your sarcastic comment. I don't know why you bothered, as it added nothing to the discussion.

It added to the discussion by pointing out the absurdity of your statement about the relative unfairness. Thats why I bothered.

[IYAS9YAS]

The fact that the tribes in Idaho are fighting to not have to pay their distributor the tax that is ultimately passed to the consumer. They wan't to establish their own tribal tax on the fuel and charge that. So, in effect, if they don't have to pay the state tax via the pass through, then the consumers don't pay the Idaho tax and the state still has to maintain the roads. The tribes benefit twice as they get the roads maintained by the state and they keep the tribal tax they collect.

All I want is for them to either A.) Collect the state tax from their customers and remit it to the state for use on the roads in the state or B.) Not collect it but be fully liable for the repair of all roads on their reservation. Either is okay for me.

However, if they wind up not having to pay the tax via the distributor, then the fuel won't be considered Idaho tax-paid, and that will severely impact interstate truck (over 26,000 lbs) traffic as the truckers won't be able to claim the fuel as tax-paid for International Fuel Tax Agreement purposes (that's another can of worms).

[lockjaw02]

"There's that, and I think that any state that tried to pull a "Customs" check, with an "Import Tax" would be slapped down pretty darn hard by the feds, since it is a power enumerated to the feds, and the feds alone...

Yes, that's what I meant. I didn't see the person I replied to specifically specified a "state" run customs checkpoint.

Even if someone brought in more than the duty free allotment, I believe they have the option of paying the duty on the excess (which is usually more than if they were imported wholesale) or having the product confiscated. Even if they pay the duty, I don't think the state where the passenger arrives in the US gets to slap a state tax on the product. If the person is a resident of that state or any other, they're supposed to voluntarily declare and pay the state tax to the state of their residence. Many people are getting hunted down by the taxmen of various states with obscenely high taxes for buying cigs over the internet. One guy from NJ posted the bill he received on the internet with transcripts from his case in tax court. NJ actually imposes the excise tax first and then imposes a sales tax calculated as a percentage of the total amount TO INCLUDE the excise tax. Residents are actually paying taxes on taxes.

[Henrietta]

"Well, I know that I have, but obviously the same can't be said for you."

That's a pretty silly thing to say, since you don't even know me.

Those that know me know that I have devoted hours to the cause of firearms rights, both in and out of the courtroom.

[Henrietta]

Pointing out the unfairness of treating people differently based on their ethnicity is hardly absurd. Are you an affirmative action supporter?

[Chad Fairbanks]

Hey, if you are free to make assumptions, then so am I. If you don't like it, don't do it.

[Chad Fairbanks]

Are you an affirmative action supporter?

Well, if you can show historical constitutional justification for affirmative action, then your wuestion would be relevent.

Henrietta, if you don't like that Indians are treated differently, get busy trying to amend the constitution. It's the only way you will end it. Article I of the constitution is quite clear in specifying that Indians are treated differently. Get used to it, or try to change it. Pretty simple.

[lockjaw02]

Would this help you in dispelling the myth?

http://www.unm.edu/~abqteach/usa/00-05-02.htm

[lockjaw02]

Henrietta, that is very noble of you to fight for firearms rights. However, anyone can fight for any given right that is near and dear to them.

Now, I'm not saying you don't, because I don't know you, but the true measure of a freedom fighter is how one carries oneself when faced with the rights of others when you have material incentive or personal motive to do so, other than on principle. Why fight against seat belt laws if I don't own a car? Why fight against helmet laws if I don't ride a motorcycle? Why fight against usury tax rates on cigarettes and bans in bars if I'm not a smoker? Why fight for Indians' rights under federally recognized treaties under Constitutional Law if I'm not an Indian? Because we have a Constitution that enumerates limited powers to the Federal and state governments, and those treaties were negotiated with sovereign tribes and ratified under those authorities, that's why.

Look what the US Senate posts on their origins and development page (boldface emphasis is mine):

The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors' councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate's role was "first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led."

Heck, it's right there in black and white, the Senate is supposed to protect us from the whims of the tyranny of the majority (ourselves), the ignorant masses (ourselves), lynch mobs (ourselves), anti-smokers (ourselves, well, not me and at least a few others I know here), prohibitionists, etc, etc. Can't you see it?

The most telling phrases along the common thought of those wanting to abolish treaties I've seen so far was something to the effect that Indians should have to suffer just like the rest of us or why should Indians get treated special? Well, for one, their tribal leaders and representatives earned those rights and privileges for them at the bargaining table with the US Federal Government. What did your ancestors do, and where did they come from? Many of our ancestors fleed persecution or left their home countries for a better life or adventure. Our ancestors' governments didn't bargain for your ancestors' rights. You're living under a system that only we can influence to make better for us all if only we fight together for everyone's freedom against the tyranny of the majority instead of against each other.