Anti-Sovereignty Reigns, Tavern crowd laments special status that Indians are afforded

© 2002 The Syracuse NY Post-Standard. ^ | November 01, 2002 | By David L. Shaw

[Mark Felton]

What's the difference between government $$ going to Indian-descendents and government $$ going to slave-descendents for "reparations"?

[dirtboy]

What's the difference between government $$ going to Indian-descendents and government $$ going to slave-descendents for "reparations"?

Signed treaties.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

I have less of a problem with reparations than I do sovereignty.

Sovereignty too often turns into a license for the chiefs to commit acts against their own people that would get anyone else thrown in prison for a long time, while at the same time demanding the same rights as the rest of us.

[dirtboy]

Sovereignty too often turns into a license for the chiefs to commit acts against their own people that would get anyone else thrown in prison for a long time, while at the same time demanding the same rights as the rest of us.

I agree there are a lot of such political problems on reservations - the question, however, is what do the signed treaties provide for?

[Behind Liberal Lines]

the question, however, is what do the signed treaties provide for?

The problem with continuing to operation under the treaties is, IMHO, they should be considered void as against public policy.

They are a relic of a time where Indians were considered noble savages. Today, we aspire to treat our citizens equally and not put them in guilded "concentration camps."

[dirtboy]

The problem with continuing to operation under the treaties is, IMHO, they should be considered void as against public policy. They are a relic of a time where Indians were considered noble savages. Today, we aspire to treat our citizens equally and not put them in guilded "concentration camps."

They are still legal treaties. Do you advocate breaking a legally-binding treaty to promote your viewpoint here?

[Behind Liberal Lines]

They are still legal treaties. Do you advocate breaking a legally-binding treaty to promote your viewpoint here?

Yes.

Don't look so shocked.

Many once binding contracts are broken when determined to be illegal or otherwise violative of public policy.

One example would be deed restrictions that prohibited selling land to blacks. They were declared void as against public policy.

Another example would be the fact that President Bush (and most FR members) have no problem breaking the ABM treaty if it interferes with space based defense.

The Indian treaties may be legally binding, but they are, like racist deed covenants and the ABM treaty, relics of a bygone time and cause more harm than good.

Therefore, as I said, they should, be thrown as "void as against public policy"

[Behind Liberal Lines]

ping

[dirtboy]

Yes. Don't look so shocked.

That's not the issue.

Many once binding contracts are broken when determined to be illegal or otherwise violative of public policy.

Yeah, Congress does that with the Constitutional all the time.

One example would be deed restrictions that prohibited selling land to blacks. They were declared void as against public policy.

Void as against the Constitution - the law of the United States (supposedly). The treaties with the Indian tribes were treaties with sovereign nations. Different animal.

Another example would be the fact that President Bush (and most FR members) have no problem breaking the ABM treaty if it interferes with space based defense.

A better point, but that's a far more compelling reason than because Native Americans can run casinos and other folks can't.

The Indian treaties may be legally binding, but they are, like racist deed covenants and the ABM treaty, relics of a bygone time and cause more harm than good. Therefore, as I said, they should, be thrown as "void as against public policy"

Just like countless other treaties with Native Americans were over the years, eh? They really didn't need that land, let's kick them off of it. What this boils down to is folks don't want the Indians to keep the remaining advantages they have under treaty - so let's break them again.

So then don't be surprised that it's also so easy to violate the Constitution - because the end justifies the means, ALL IN THE NAME OF PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC GOOD.

[B4Ranch]

Would I be far from wrong if I said you support globalism?

[B4Ranch]

Casinos should not be limited to Indian tribes, Shutter said. "It's a matter of fairness, and it's not fair now," he said.

No! What is appearing here is GREED. It's very hard for the white man to accept that if the indians use these casinos intelligently they won't be needing our "contributions" to stay alive.

We have screwed the indian tribes out of damn near everything. Tribal sovereignty is what is scaring the UN and other globalists.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

Would I be far from wrong if I said you support globalism?

Actually, I consider continuing to bow before non-existent "nations" that regularly violate the human rights of their "members" and allowing US citizens to hold dual citizenship in those selfsame "nations" much more akin to globalism than my beliefs.

[omega4412]

The idea of having one group of people above the law by right of ancestry is as bad as the idea of having one group of people beneath the law by reason of birth.

[Marianne]

BTTT

[Cyber Liberty]

It's very hard for the white man to accept that if the indians use these casinos intelligently they won't be needing our "contributions" to stay alive.

If the Indians were "using these casinos intelligently" this would all have been over years ago. The fact that the "temporary" casinos are still here demonstrates the fact that the $$ isn't going to where it was promised.

FYI, I'm in AZ, where we have two of the biggest reservations in the country, so I know what I'm talking about.

[BlueLancer]

"Do you advocate breaking a legally-binding treaty to promote your viewpoint here?"

Well, it isn't as if we haven't done so before. I would say that we've got plenty of practice in that regard.

[dirtboy]

The idea of having one group of people above the law by right of ancestry is as bad as the idea of having one group of people beneath the law by reason of birth.

And how does their special status - as a result of signed treaty - place them above the law?

[dirtboy]

Well, it isn't as if we haven't done so before. I would say that we've got plenty of practice in that regard.

That we do, just as we have lots of practice in ignoring the Constitution as well. I see both as symptoms of the same disease - the temptation to circumvent the rule of law to either promote your personal agenda, give yourself an advantage or take away someone else's rights under the law.

[omega4412]

No treaty gave them a right to operate casinos. Or to operate tax-free stores.