FingerLakes1.com Forums
Page 35 of 110 < 1 2 ... 33 34 35 36 37 ... 109 110 >
Topic Options
#1348749 --- 06/12/12 01:26 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: bluezone]
teedoff27 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/11/11
Posts: 2272
Loc: S2Hphoto
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: teedoff27
All those options whether it be native or out of state results in LOST tax $$'s and revenue for NYS!


since when did lost tax dollars/revenue for NYS be your main concern?

turning stone is illegal (see ruling) and the state should just take it over


My point was.... If Prince Andrew and his Goons were really interested in taking business away from the Natives like they claim ....then they would legalize State Run Poker state-wide to take away from Seneca, Turning Stone, Penn., CT, New Hampshire's draw of Legal Poker. He would also allow the Racinos that are already built and paid for to provide *Vegas Style* gaming.

However by Prince Andrew NOT allowing the Racino's to expand and ignoring and not legalizing State Run Poker.... he is still giving the Native Casinos the upper-hand

As far as your ruling, it has NEVER been enforced so it is USELESS!
_________________________
Spiritual people INSPIRE me
Religious people FRIGHTEN me

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#1349813 --- 06/20/12 08:27 AM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: teedoff27]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32557
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: teedoff27
As far as your ruling, it has NEVER been enforced so it is USELESS!


the ruling can be used to deny trust as trust cannot be applied if illegal activities are occuring on land that is being applied for trust

the ruling can also be used to rescind the treaties as the tribes are in violation of the treaties by the illegal activities they are engaged in
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#1349837 --- 06/20/12 10:03 AM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: bluezone]
Teonan Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/30/12
Posts: 4979
Loc: Malmö
Recind the treaties?

Laughable at best bz.
_________________________
"Everything that has ever happened to us is there to make us stronger."
-John Trudell


Top
#1349859 --- 06/20/12 01:49 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: bluezone]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 11882
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: teedoff27
As far as your ruling, it has NEVER been enforced so it is USELESS!


the ruling can be used to deny trust as trust cannot be applied if illegal activities are occuring on land that is being applied for trust

the ruling can also be used to rescind the treaties as the tribes are in violation of the treaties by the illegal activities they are engaged in


No reason to rescind the treaties. The native americans go to court to get more money every so often bassed on the fact the treaties were never ratified.
_________________________
Trump removes 100 troops from harm's way and deep staters have a meltdown. Unbelievable.

Top
#1349909 --- 06/20/12 07:21 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: Teonan]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32557
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: Teonan
Recind the treaties?

Laughable at best bz.



sorry if you have not read any NYS treaty


the treaties were rescinded when the tribal members were given US citizenship in 1924


Originally Posted By: Rich_Tallcot
http://www.citizensalliance.org.
Indian Treaties and Current Federal Indian Policy
By Darrel Smith
Editor of the CERA Journal

Many people agree that federal Indian policy is harmful, even racist, but they think that these policies are required by the treaties that have been entered into between the federal government and Indian tribes. The United States Government entered into about 373 treaties with less than 150 Indian tribes between 1778 and 1868. Many tribes have multiple treaties. For example, there are twenty treaties with the Cherokee, forty-four with the Chippewa and fifteen with the Choctaw. The treaties and agreements with the various Sioux bands are recorded in a three volume book set. The Bureau of Indian Affairs recognizes 564 tribes (August, 2009). There are also, numerous agreements between the government and tribes starting in 1792 and occurring especially after the end of the treaty period in 1871.

The federal government recognizes hundreds of tribes that don't have a single treaty with the government. There isn't a single treaty between the government and Indian people in general. All the treaties were between the government and specific Indian tribes. A treaty with one entity doesn't bind relations with other entities. Treaty provisions with Spain, for example, don't normally control our relations with Denmark. If federal Indian policy is required by treaty provisions why does the government recognize and deal with treaty and non-treaty tribes essentially the same? Why do they deal with different tribes who have different treaties, and treaty provisions, essentially the same? The vast majority of modern federal Indian policy is unrelated to Indian treaties.

The Constitution makes the U. S. Constitution, laws and treaties the "supreme Law of the Land" over state authority with this clause:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."[Art.VI, Cl. 2]

(The "Legal Issues" section of our web site is one of the few places you can find a link to all the Indian treaties.) Indian treaties are valid historical documents equal to the highest law of the land and superior to state constitutions and laws, but are superseded by later federal treaties, legal agreements, laws, and, of course, the US Constitution itself. For example, in Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S.

1 (1957) the Supreme Court said:

"There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared: "'The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [354 U.S. 1, 18] government or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.' "This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument."

Tribal activists often claim a favored provision out of a single treaty while ignoring other provisions of the same treaty and also later treaties, agreements, laws and the Constitution with its Amendments. They then attack anyone who objects to this simplistic approach as anti-treaty and anti-Indian, and there are some very significant later laws and constitutional provisions that impact treaty interpretations.

The Fourteenth Amendment, the Dawes and Burke Acts, the Citizenship Act of 1924 and many other laws and constitutional provisions legally should take precedence over any inconsistent provisions of earlier treaties. Indians on reservations still do not have the protections of our state and federal constitutions. Not only is the current situation not required by law, it violates any normal understanding of law. For an explanation of the status of tribal members on reservations read the article entitled Why Indians are Second Class Citizens available at the bottom of the "Home Page" on our web site at: http://www.citizensalliance.org .

Modern federal Indian policy is entirely dependent on the existence of tribal governments in order to function. If treaties didn't prevent the end of tribal governments as political entities as mandated by the Dawes and Burke Acts, then these same treaties certainly can't require the reestablishment of political tribal governments by the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. Justice Clarence Thomas referred to this while concurring in United States v. Lara:

"Next, the Court acknowledges that '[t]he treaty power does not literally authorize Congress to act legislatively, for it is an Article II power authorizing the President, not Congress, 'to make Treaties.'"… (quoting U.S. Const., Art. II, §2, cl. 2). This, of course, suffices to show that it provides no power to Congress, at least in the absence of a specific treaty. Cf. Missouri v. Holland, 252 U. S. 416 (1920). The treaty power does not, as the Court seems to believe, provide Congress with freefloating power to legislate as it sees fit on topics that could potentially implicate some unspecified treaty. Such an assertion is especially ironic in light of Congress' enacted prohibition on Indian treaties.

"The Federal Government cannot simultaneously claim power to regulate virtually every aspect of the tribes through ordinary domestic legislation and also maintain that the tribes possess anything resembling 'sovereignty.'"

Not only is Judge Thomas correct in his analysis that that you need a specific treaty provision, as has been noted above, you also need a specific treaty that hasn't been voided by later treaties, agreements, laws or the provisions of the Constitution itself. Then that treaty only controls relations with the specific tribe involved. These limitations guarantee that treaties cannot provide a valid legal basis for modern federal Indian policy. Just one question should be sufficient to clearly demonstrate this fact. Where are the treaty provisions that authorize the federal government to hold the deed to all "Indian land?" Very simply, they don't exist. Many of the most common and important treaty provisions would be fulfilled by finally granting full and equal citizenship rights to all Indians.


_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#1350437 --- 06/24/12 08:31 AM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: Teonan]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32557
Loc: USA
Quote:

"A decision this week by the U.S. Supreme Court is seen as a setback for Indian tribes. The case involves the Gun Lake Tribe and its casino near Grand Rapids.

A neighbor is suing saying the casino is lowering property values and ruining the neighborhood.

As tribal attorneys see it, the Court opened a way for just about anyone to challenge the legitimacy of tribal lands. Land taken into trust by the federal over the last several years is especially vulnerable."

_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#1350473 --- 06/24/12 01:43 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: bluezone]
Teonan Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/30/12
Posts: 4979
Loc: Malmö
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Teonan
Recind the treaties?

Laughable at best bz.



sorry if you have not read any NYS treaty


the treaties were rescinded when the tribal members were given US citizenship in 1924


Canandaigua Treaty of 1794, one of the first treaties the United States entered into. Also known as the Pickering Treaty, between the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy) and the United States of America.

Dream on Bz, the treaty is still actively recognized by the United States and the nations of the Haudenosaunee confederacy.
_________________________
"Everything that has ever happened to us is there to make us stronger."
-John Trudell


Top
#1350502 --- 06/24/12 04:14 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: Teonan]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32557
Loc: USA
seems you have not read it as the tribes are in violation of it
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#1350512 --- 06/24/12 04:59 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: bluezone]
Teonan Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/30/12
Posts: 4979
Loc: Malmö
Is your Congressperson pushing to rescind the Pickering Treaty?

Highly unlikey.
_________________________
"Everything that has ever happened to us is there to make us stronger."
-John Trudell


Top
#1350563 --- 06/25/12 07:47 AM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: Teonan]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32557
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: Teonan
the Pickering Treaty?


post a copy of this treaty that you feel is valid
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#1350571 --- 06/25/12 08:58 AM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: Teonan]
kyle585 Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 02/18/09
Posts: 19801
Loc: Somewhere out there
Originally Posted By: Teonan
Canandaigua Treaty of 1794, one of the first treaties the United States entered into. Also known as the Pickering Treaty, between the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy) and the United States of America.

Dream on Bz, the treaty is still actively recognized by the United States and the nations of the Haudenosaunee confederacy.
Does the treaty say they do not have to pay sales taxes on their sales of cancer sticks to non-Indians at their convenience stores in Seneca Falls and Union Strings? Does it say they do not have to pay property taxes as all other American citizens must pay?

3/31/12: Cayugas owe Seneca County $606,643.18 in back property taxes!
_________________________
**** ATTENTION! BAD POLITICIANS ARE ELECTED BY GOOD PEOPLE WHO DON'T VOTE! ****

Top
#1350576 --- 06/25/12 09:23 AM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: bluezone]
cwjga Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 11882
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: bluezone
seems you have not read it as the tribes are in violation of it


What does it matter. That is not the treaty that is the issue, not the tribe that is the issue.
_________________________
Trump removes 100 troops from harm's way and deep staters have a meltdown. Unbelievable.

Top
#1350577 --- 06/25/12 09:33 AM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: bluezone]
Teonan Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/30/12
Posts: 4979
Loc: Malmö
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Teonan
the Pickering Treaty?


post a copy of this treaty that you feel is valid



You're being ridiculous. Have a problem with the Canandaigua Treaty of 1794? Contact your Congressional rep.

Let us know how that works out for ya.
_________________________
"Everything that has ever happened to us is there to make us stronger."
-John Trudell


Top
#1350600 --- 06/25/12 12:20 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: kyle585]
kyle585 Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 02/18/09
Posts: 19801
Loc: Somewhere out there
Originally Posted By: kyle585
Originally Posted By: Teonan
Canandaigua Treaty of 1794, one of the first treaties the United States entered into. Also known as the Pickering Treaty, between the Haudenosaunee (Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy) and the United States of America.

Dream on Bz, the treaty is still actively recognized by the United States and the nations of the Haudenosaunee confederacy.
Does the treaty say they do not have to pay sales taxes on their sales of cancer sticks to non-Indians at their convenience stores in Seneca Falls and Union Strings? Does it say they do not have to pay property taxes as all other American citizens must pay?

3/31/12: Cayugas owe Seneca County $606,643.18 in back property taxes!
No comment I see.
_________________________
**** ATTENTION! BAD POLITICIANS ARE ELECTED BY GOOD PEOPLE WHO DON'T VOTE! ****

Top
#1350601 --- 06/25/12 12:41 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: kyle585]
Teonan Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/30/12
Posts: 4979
Loc: Malmö
Chill Kyle. My comment was toward bz's delusion of the Canandaigua Treaty being recinded, not your itch about sales taxes.
_________________________
"Everything that has ever happened to us is there to make us stronger."
-John Trudell


Top
#1350679 --- 06/26/12 05:54 AM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: Teonan]
kyle585 Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 02/18/09
Posts: 19801
Loc: Somewhere out there
Originally Posted By: Teonan
Chill Kyle. My comment was toward bz's delusion of the Canandaigua Treaty being recinded, not your itch about sales taxes.
It is all the same problem, isn't it? The Indians are treated like super citizens who do not have to follow the same laws as other Americans.
_________________________
**** ATTENTION! BAD POLITICIANS ARE ELECTED BY GOOD PEOPLE WHO DON'T VOTE! ****

Top
#1350685 --- 06/26/12 06:44 AM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: Teonan]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32557
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: Teonan
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Teonan
the Pickering Treaty?
post a copy of this treaty that you feel is valid
You're being ridiculous. Have a problem with the Canandaigua Treaty of 1794?


you must not even be aware of the treaty terms
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#1350686 --- 06/26/12 06:45 AM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: Teonan]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32557
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: Teonan
My comment was toward bz's delusion of the Canandaigua Treaty being recinded, not your itch about sales taxes.


are you suggesting the tribes pay their share of the sales taxes?
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#1351827 --- 07/04/12 08:46 AM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: bluezone]
kyle585 Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 02/18/09
Posts: 19801
Loc: Somewhere out there
From today's FL Times:

By DAVID L. SHAW
dshaw@fltimes.com

SENECA FALLS –– The Cayuga Indian Nation of New York has purchased another parcel.

On June 26, the Nation acquired the deed to a 0.53-acre parcel at 2947 E. Bayard Street Extension from sellers Michael L. and Kelly S. Shores. The property is assessed at $88,000 and the tribe bought it for $117,000.

The sale was the first for the Cayugas since Feb. 22. The Nation has purchased 56 parcels in Seneca Falls totaling just over 1,003 acres. They also own three parcels in the town of Varick totaling 145.8 acres and 243 acres of land in Cayuga County.

The Nation pays property taxes when the deeds are transferred but does not pay taxes once it acquires the property. It currently has more than $606,000 in unpaid property taxes in Seneca County going back to 2008. The latest purchase is the 13th parcel on East Bayard Street Extension bought by the Cayugas since March 2008. The tribe has paid nearly $8.7 million for land assessed at 5.9 million.
_________________________
**** ATTENTION! BAD POLITICIANS ARE ELECTED BY GOOD PEOPLE WHO DON'T VOTE! ****

Top
#1352135 --- 07/07/12 02:27 AM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: kyle585]
teedoff27 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/11/11
Posts: 2272
Loc: S2Hphoto
I'm looking to purchase property in Seneca Falls just so I can sell it for $40,000 MORE than I paid for it to the Cayugas!!!
_________________________
Spiritual people INSPIRE me
Religious people FRIGHTEN me

Top
Page 35 of 110 < 1 2 ... 33 34 35 36 37 ... 109 110 >