To: Stoat
Indian reservations like Red Lake are sovereign states. So why would President Bush say anything about it?
To: miliantnutcase
They're not really sovereign states in the sense of being foreign. They're sovereign in the sense of being under their own laws and councils, as opposed to those of the state in which they sit.
19 posted on
03/25/2005 10:13:45 AM PST by
Vicomte13
(Aure entuluva.)
To: miliantnutcase
Indian reservations like Red Lake are sovereign states. If they're sovereign states, how come the people living there get to vote? If they people living there are citizens, how come they don't have to obey the same laws the rest of us do?
30 posted on
03/25/2005 12:47:11 PM PST by
JoeFromSidney
(My book is out. Read excerpts at http://www.thejusticecooperative.com)
To: miliantnutcase
Indian reservations like Red Lake are sovereign states. In the same sense that Texas or Florida are sovereign states. Which is to say, not very.
31 posted on
03/25/2005 2:45:21 PM PST by
El Gato
(Activist Judges can twist the Constitution into anything they want ... or so they think.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson