Discussion of California Ballot Initiatives

[NirvanaMan]

Originally Posted by GusGus

Don't tempt him!

Good point.

[Strangler Lewis]

My knowledge of Indian law is limited, but I think it's been over a century since Congress declared that Indian tribes are not separate nations with whom treaties can be made.

[3894]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

My knowledge of Indian law is limited, but I think it's been over a century since Congress declared that Indian tribes are not separate nations with whom treaties can be made.

That's true. Congress did declare in 1868 that the period of making treaties was over. That doesn't mean that the ideas of sovereignty, as defined by Justice Marshall in Cherokee v Georgia and Worchester v Georgia in the
1830's as dependant sovereign nations does not still hold.

Of course, President Jackson ignored this ruling and ordered the removal of the Cherokee nation to Indian Territory (now Oklahoma, of course).

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by JWBear

CP, that is one of the fundamental philosophical differences between many on the right and left. Those on the right see things such as health, safety, and education as matters of personal choice. Those on the left see these things as part the public good.

I'm trying really hard not to be offended by you educating me on what right and left are. As a friend to a friend, the condescention here is unnerving. I've posted many times about my migration from one side of the spectrum to the other to some degree, so please, don't tell me what each side is like, thanks.

Originally Posted by NirvanaMan

If you read my comments again I believe you would have to concur that I made no such qualitative judgment in my statement. I simply questioned whether it might be considered to be part of the public infrastructure. I suppose I could be convinced either way on it, though my first blush tendency is to balk at anything government controlled. I don't necessarily disagree that K-12 by our friendly government is the wrong way to go about things. However I can't say I've been interested enough to pay it much thought.

I totally see where you're coming from, as I used to agree with you. One argument I would make is that even if you personally are not going to have children, the people that you work with throughout your life - your doctor, your real estate agent, your auto repairman, your grocery checker - may or may not have had a good education. You will not have cared about that until the moment that they screw up your order at a restaurant or handle your complaint poorly due to lack of socialization growing up.

Oh, and the guy that breaks into your car, or hangs around homeless near your freeway exit may have had a better start due to all of our help. Again, I know this is all pointless in the light of the doctrine of personal responsibility, but I've come to understand that there's no way to be personally responsible if you didn't have a decent education.

The thing is, what is "infrastructure"? As an employee of AAA, you should know the history of the company. Originally it was formed as a private club to provide road infrastructure where there wasn't any. So, shock of shocks, a private agency provided this infrastructure instead of the government. I fail to see how this isn't any different from education in your rationale.

Personally, I think both should be on the list of things we provide for the public good.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

I'm trying really hard not to be offended by you educating me on what right and left are. As a friend to a friend, the condescention here is unnerving. I've posted many times about my migration from one side of the spectrum to the other to some degree, so please, don't tell me what each side is like, thanks.

Excuse the hell out of me for stating opinions. I thought that was still allowed.

[Prudence]

Aren't federally-recognized tribes sovereign somewhat in the sense that states are sovereign? Individual states can't go off and make treaties, but they can (within Constitutional limits) make laws that apply in that state.

[3894]

Originally Posted by Prudence

Aren't federally-recognized tribes sovereign somewhat in the sense that states are sovereign? Individual states can't go off and make treaties, but they can (within Constitutional limits) make laws that apply in that state.

Right, individual states are superseded by the federal government in treaty-making. Federally-recognized tribes have sovereign rights dependant on the federal government, which places them under federal jurisdiction, instead of state jurisdiction.

As far as gaming is concerned, the Gaming Act of 1988 stated that tribes must form compacts as an equal to the state in which they reside. The compacts can only be made if the state already allows Class III gaming, which is high-stakes gaming. The federal law came about as an interpretation of the right for Indian tribes to have gaming on their reservations, according to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Cabazon Mission Band in California v State of California. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that California did not have the right to ban a bingo establishment that the Cabazon Band had. It would have been a violation of their sovereign right to have gaming on their reservation, despite the fact that the State of California, at the time, did not allow it.

Indians are under the jurisdiction of the federal government with regard to criminal behavior beyond misdemeanors and that is why FBI agents are usually assigned to reservations.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by 3894

Indians are under the jurisdiction of the federal government with regard to criminal behavior beyond misdemeanors and that is why FBI agents are usually assigned to reservations.

Unless PL 280 applies.

[innerSpaceman]

Regardless, it's a move by four rich tribes - filthy rich i might add - to get richer by adding 17,000 more slots to their casinos. As it stands now, the wealth is divided among 2,100 people ... who get 30,000 a month! Yes, that's per month. And the vast beneficence of Indian Gaming revenue goes to a mere 2,100 people who control more than a third of the state's indian gaming industry (and representing a mere 4 of the state's 108 federally recognized tribes).

The bit about more gaming revenue providing more money to the state is a canard. The more California residents gamble away on gaming spending, the less they spend on goods and services that are taxed at an even higher rate. If 94 -97 pass, the money will simply be shifted from higher taxed spending to lower taxed spending. And the 2100 filthy rich indians will get filthier.

By the way, gaming has become an $8 billion industry in California, soon to overtake the trucking industry, dairy industry and perhaps even the Hollywood film industry as the leading industry in the state.


The two sides on this issue have spent more than $100 million dollars, making it the costliest initiative fight in California history ... maybe in history, period.

Says Cal State San Bernadino economics professor Eric Nilson, "When someone goes to a casino and loses $500, that's money not spent at a local restaurant, at the video store or at a local mall - all businesses that pay state taxes. The casino pays no state or local taxes on that money. This is just shifting money around."



innerSpaceman says VOTE NO ON PROPOSITIONS 94, 95, 96 & 97.

[3894]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

And the 2100 filthy rich indians will get filthier.

Quite right. Tom and I are writing a book about who gets to share in that wealth, i.e. who is in the tribe and who ain't. Look for it in about a year.