i'm sure the Oneida are thrilled...
Posted on 02/24/2009 2:49:57 PM PST by patriotmediaa
Court rules for state in American Indian land case I. – The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday limited the federal government's authority to hold land in trust for Indian tribes, a victory for Rhode Island and other states seeking to impose local laws and control over development on Indian lands.
The court's ruling applies to tribes recognized by the federal government after the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act.
The U.S. government argued that the law allows it to take land into trust for tribes regardless of when they were recognized, but Justice Clarence Thomas said in his majority opinion that the law "unambiguously refers to those tribes that were under the federal jurisdiction" when it was enacted.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Wow.
Better title: “PIGS FLY”
Won’t go over good...on my Rez.
I don’t think this applies to those tribes who were recognized before 1934...
I think I'll root for the Indians this time. Cowboys are sittin this one out.
Won’t go over good on alot of rezes.
i'm sure the Oneida are thrilled...
I have heard that in our area of Kaleefornia, the casino at one place pays the certified members a certain amount of money each month, tax free. Then, some of the members buy houses away from the reservation which then become federal land, also tax free. One can see how this can spread as a tribe gets more money and buys more land which becomes tax free. Naturally the states don't like it because they don't get taxes from the property, and the feds really don't like it either because they won't get taxes from cigarettes.
More power to ‘em!
The US government needs to authorize an “indigenous congress”, for the recognized Indian and other tribes to meet with delegates of the POTUS, to create new treaties between the US and the various tribes.
Many of the Indian treaties are gobbledygook, and were at the time they were written, leaving many tribes in a legal vacuum. This prevents them from inviting non-Indian developers and businesses on their land for much needed improvements and commerce.
To make matters worse, the tribes are under the sway of the BIA, which is almost universally agreed to be the worst and most corrupt federal agency.
At the tribal level, political reforms have been at near standstill since about the US Civil War. Crude patronage and corruption are the norm.
Such treaty negotiations could take perhaps 20 years to complete, perhaps more. It would go a long way to let some of the poorest people in the country better themselves.
Won’t matter....the nut’s on my Rez will scream and yell.
This differs from business as usual how?
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.
February 24, 1803
Marbury v. Madison establishes judicial review
On this day in 1803, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, decides the landmark case of William Marbury versus James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States and confirms the legal principle of judicial review—the ability of the Supreme Court to limit Congressional power by declaring legislation unconstitutional—in the new nation.
The court ruled that the new president, Thomas Jefferson, via his secretary of state, James Madison, was wrong to prevent William Marbury from taking office as justice of the peace for Washington County in the District of Columbia. However, it also ruled that the court had no jurisdiction in the case and could not force Jefferson and Madison to seat Marbury. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction, but the Marshall court ruled the Act of 1789 to be an unconstitutional extension of judiciary power into the realm of the executive.
In writing the decision, John Marshall argued that acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution are not law and therefore are non-binding to the courts, and that the judiciary’s first responsibility is always to uphold the Constitution. If two laws conflict, Marshall wrote, the court bears responsibility for deciding which law applies in any given case. Thus, Marbury never received his job.
Jefferson and Madison objected to Marbury’s appointment and those of all the so-called “midnight judges” appointed by the previous president, John Adams, after Jefferson was elected but mere hours before he took office. To further aggravate the new Democratic-Republican administration, many of these Federalist judges—although Marbury was not one of them—were taking the bench in new courts formed by the Judiciary Act, which the lame-duck Federalist Congress passed on February 13, 1801, less than a month before Jefferson’s inauguration on March 4.
As part of the “Revolution of 1800,” President Thomas Jefferson and his Democratic-Republican followers launched a series of attacks against the Federalist-controlled courts. The new Democratic-Republican-controlled Congress easily eliminated most of the midnight judges by repealing the Judiciary Act in 1802. They impeached Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase, but acquitted him amidst inner-party squabbles. The Chase acquittal coupled with Marshall’s impeccably argued decision put an end to the Jeffersonian attack.
Thanks! and welcome to FR.
Thanks Civ. Seems to be a fairly narrow decision based on pre-existing feral law so it’s hard to say how this might compare with more broadly based “States’ Rights” issues, but I’ll take a state win most any day. Just wondering if that lost Indian tribe has ever been found???
:’)
Good point.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.