County Governments Oppose Fee Land to TrustBy Kathy ClearyThe fact that Federal Indian Policy is unconstitutional is obvious to anyone who takes a second to think about it. How can creating “sovereign nations” within the United States–allowing the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), a federal agency, to create governments based on race, that function under their own tribal constitutions with little to no oversight, transfer fee land into federal trust (removing land from local and state jurisdiction) for purposes such as operating casinos where the tribal government pays no tax on the profit, have no accountability and can actually become hostile to the surrounding community or to their own tribal members for that matter, and use their casino millions to contribute to politicians, something no other foreign/sovereign government is allowed to do–how can this be Constitutional? It can’t be and it isn’t.
Comment: Tribal governments are based on political and cultural affiliation, not race. And the federal government recognizes rather than creates them, since they've existed for hundreds of years. So what Cleary thinks is "obvious" is flatly wrong on these two key issues. It's flatly wrong, period.
As for her other claims--how accountable tribes are, how hostile they are, etc.--how are these constitutional issues? They aren't, obviously. Cleary is dressing up her dislike of Indians as a "neutral" legal argument. She's prejudiced against Indians but wants to pretend she isn't.
For more on the subject, see The Facts About Tribal Sovereignty
and The Essential Facts About Indians
Has this person ever heard of Wal-Mart?
Tribes are not only scrutinized and regulated to death, they operate UNDER state jurisdictions in many cases.
Ever heard of state troopers and state governors keeping tribes soveriegnty at bay?
"Have no accountability" is an American trait. Surely, Cleary doesn't want to go there!
American corporations ran by American citizens can hide money in foreign banks. I'd like to hear of one instance a tribe gets away with this?
And as far as buying politicians, since when in American politics has the buying and selling of political clout been a "BAD" thing?
Just when tribes do it?
This person is not only naive, but to quote my conservative brethren, it sounds like Kathy Cleary hates America?
There's nothing to do with Walmart in the parent post, in any way.
I'm guessing Burt's Wal-Mart reference has to do with the claim that tribes "have no accountability and can actually become hostile to the surrounding community." He's saying Wal-Mart is just as bad.
I think the point is this: States, counties, and cities aren't accountable to each other and can become hostile to their neighbors. Corporations such as Wal-Mart often ignore or fight attempts to hold them accountable. So this problem is nothing unique or special to tribes.
Walmarts only thrive in communities because the communities want them.
Its good to see someone else besides me doesn't think in "one-dimensional" patterns like some do.
You hit the nail on the head Rob and to bring you up to date into this new century Dmarks, Wal-Mart is not always "wanted" in every community!
What I find interesting about the Constitution is that since its inception, it has been recinded, amended and changed to meet the needs of the controlling government and industry of the time.
It is not a living nor viable document to me anymore than a newspaper changing headlines day to day.
Therefore, how does it apply to native nations that have been in existence thousands of years before it was written?
It is forced on them at gun point, thats how!
Post a Comment