Posted on 04/12/2021 12:42:00 AM PDT by nickcarraway
That's been so for decades. Elected peeps are by and large puppet actors. They do what the theater producers induce them to do. "the interagency" and the lobbyists are really in charge.
"The People's Almanac" of 1975 had this well pegged. Here's another reference, Warnings from Former Presidents About Who Really Runs the Show
At any rate, not new with the Obama-2 administration.
U.S. Supreme Court
Washington Game Dept. v. Puyallup Tribe, 414 u.s. 44 (1973) November 1973
Ruling gives the tribes access to in-river fisheries, but provides that the state is not obligated to subsidize them with planted fish - but state does anyway. Prior to this ruling in-river fisheries were closed to all;
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, aff'd, 520 F.2d 676 1974
AKA, The Boldt Decision: rules Indian have right to 60% of the salmon resource, gives tribes management over-site, removes Tribal tax burden on landings;
U.S. Supreme Court
Puyallup Tribe v. Washington Game Dept., 433 U.S. 165 (1977) June 1977
Rruling rejects Tribal claims to exclusive fishing rights to salmon, but makes catch accounting voluntary;
U.S. Supreme Court
Washington v. Fishing Vessel Assn July 1979
Vacates the Boldt Decision, affirms commercial fishing is a racial issue, relegates all American non-Indians to second class citizenship, paves way for Special Masters to be appointed from tribes to oversee non-Indian property), from this single, little-known landmark Court decision flowed all the modern notions of "Tribal rights", "Tribal Sovereignty" as well as the world wide "native activism"; Justices Powell, Stewart and Rehnquist Dissenting;
1981: several dozen non-Indian commercial fishermen sentenced to 8 months in Federal prisons for crime of fishing;
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
USA V State of Washington 9635014 (1998) January 1998 (aka, Shellfish 1);
Landmark ruling reaffirms the Boldt Decision which was vacated by the US Supreme Court, and upholds the notion that shellfish are fish, as well as the concept of Special Masters, as well as furthering the principle that any future consequences flowing from Treaties entered into by the Federal Government fall on specific individuals only, without any compensation).
Has anyone considered whether Biden-Harris may using the Cloward-Piven strategy to illegal immigration?
Considering how often Cloward-Piven gets mentioned here every day, I would say ‘Yes’ is the answer to your question.
O...
K...
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.