FingerLakes1.com Forums
Page 70 of 110 < 1 2 ... 68 69 70 71 72 ... 109 110 >
Topic Options
#1438834 --- 03/03/14 05:39 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: teedoff27]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
Originally Posted By: teedoff27
Like dumpster dive and beg for bottles and cans BWAHAHAHAHAHA
I would, but there are no deposits required where I live.

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#1438835 --- 03/03/14 05:46 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: Timbo]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone

your point lacks merit

Your "facts" lack merit. They still retain their Treaty and Constitutional rights regardless of whether or not they are citizens (precisely as I already posted proof of).

The states have NO authority over the Indians.
Obviously you have not caught up and are in a quandary as how to back up your Wiki OPINION posts with more of your BS alleged Timbo factoids.

Top
#1438845 --- 03/03/14 08:24 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: Timbo]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: Timbo
It doesn't HAVE to be NY tribes.
then how do you know it applies to the NYS 'tribes'?

are they all one in the same?

Because I've taken the time to learn how to read.

Evidently your reading classes were in selective reading and not in English comprehension.

Top
#1438846 --- 03/03/14 08:41 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: Timbo]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: tubby
Again your Wikipedia search has absolutely nothing to do with the tax situation in Seneca county.

It has absolutely everything to do with it, unless of course, you think that you know of some law that trumps the US Constitution and it's equally binding treaties. whistle
Timbo, your factoids are based on false assumptions. Treaties are not equally binding and are not legally binding unless passed by Congress as ratified by the US Senate. They are merely an Act of Congress and every act of Congress super cedes every prior act of Congress. Your comprehension of the English language eludes me, as there is no apostrophe in it's, unless used as a conjunction of it is. That can be a problem when teaching yourself how to read.

Top
#1438847 --- 03/03/14 09:03 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: Rich_Tallcot]
twocats Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 02/09/10
Posts: 11904
Loc: NYS
"Your comprehension of the English language eludes me, as there is no apostrophe in it's, unless used as a conjunction of it is. That can be a problem when teaching yourself how to read."

I just love when this happens.

Rich, it's called a contraction.
_________________________
Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.

Top
#1438848 --- 03/03/14 09:18 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: bluezone]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: teedoff27
The Onondaga's here in Syracuse have their own health center, health insurance, school, fire department, and *Peace Keepers* all funded by their enterprises (smoke shop, cig factory, fire keepers restaurant, and multi purpose ice/lacrosse center)


all funded by you
The Onondaga are good people and do their best to be self sufficient while refusing to accept government grants. I do not agree with their independent nation status position but respect them for practicing what they preach and admire them for maintaining their traditional government whereas most other Iroquois governments have been taken over. Comparing the Onondaga with other tribes is comparing apples and oranges. Maybe they should be the orange as they are near Syracuse.

Not every tribal member is compliant as many take advantage of NYS paying for their college education. Thank or blame NYS for that.

Yes, they support themselves via non-tribal customers. But their land claim was dismissed because the feds did not join their lawsuit and the State declared sovereign immunity because the State is the sovereign, NOT the tribe. Their latest plea was to the UN, which does NOT trump the US Constitution.

Except for the Mohawk land claim with a parcel of land in question whether Canada or the US owned it, ALL Iroquois land claims are dead.

Top
#1438850 --- 03/03/14 09:25 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: Rich_Tallcot]
Timbo Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 07/18/12
Posts: 14386
Loc: CNY
Originally Posted By: Rich_Tallcot
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: tubby
Again your Wikipedia search has absolutely nothing to do with the tax situation in Seneca county.

It has absolutely everything to do with it, unless of course, you think that you know of some law that trumps the US Constitution and it's equally binding treaties. whistle
Timbo, your factoids are based on false assumptions. Treaties are not equally binding and are not legally binding unless passed by Congress as ratified by the US Senate. They are merely an Act of Congress and every act of Congress super cedes every prior act of Congress. Your comprehension of the English language eludes me, as there is no apostrophe in it's, unless used as a conjunction of it is. That can be a problem when teaching yourself how to read.

Read and Learn:

Article VI states that, along with the U.S. Constitution and federal law, ratified treaties “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.” Treaties trump state law.
_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Top
#1438851 --- 03/03/14 09:29 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: twocats]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
Originally Posted By: twocats
"Your comprehension of the English language eludes me, as there is no apostrophe in it's, unless used as a conjunction of it is. That can be a problem when teaching yourself how to read."

I just love when this happens.

Rich, it's called a contraction.
Oops, thank you teacher. I just knew the apostrophe did not belong and Timbo's posts often attack the poster for lack of reading comprehension.

Top
#1438853 --- 03/03/14 10:08 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: Timbo]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: Rich_Tallcot
Originally Posted By: Timbo
Originally Posted By: tubby
Again your Wikipedia search has absolutely nothing to do with the tax situation in Seneca county.

It has absolutely everything to do with it, unless of course, you think that you know of some law that trumps the US Constitution and it's equally binding treaties. whistle
Timbo, your factoids are based on false assumptions. Treaties are not equally binding and are not legally binding unless passed by Congress as ratified by the US Senate. They are merely an Act of Congress and every act of Congress super cedes every prior act of Congress. Your comprehension of the English language eludes me, as there is no apostrophe in it's, unless used as a conjunction of it is. That can be a problem when teaching yourself how to read.

Read and Learn:

Article VI states that, along with the U.S. Constitution and federal law, ratified treaties “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.” Treaties trump state law.
ARTICLE VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Breaking down your selected paragraph:

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,

anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

ALL of the above constitute the Supreme Law of the Land, which includes any laws passed by Congress.

You DO know what the word AND means, such as in the Carcieri case.

I agree, treaties trump state law which does not change what I already pointed out that you replied to.

Top
#1438854 --- 03/03/14 10:13 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: Rich_Tallcot]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
I know the Carcieri case revolved around the word NOW, however the word AND in my reference alludes to federally recognized AND under federal jurisdiction.

Top
#1438855 --- 03/03/14 10:25 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: Rich_Tallcot]
VM Smith Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 11/28/05
Posts: 38160
Loc: Ship of Fools
Thanks for your efforts, Rich. You won't ever teach anything to a man who insists he is entitled to his own "facts", but you're certainly able to educate those of us who want to learn.
_________________________
If you vote for government, you have no right to complain about what government does.

Top
#1438856 --- 03/03/14 10:40 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: VM Smith]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
I knew he would bite on the Supremacy Clause argument because tribal supporters at Wells College kept arguing that treaties were the Supreme Law of the Land and selectively leaving out the full context, as with the Indians not taxed.

Top
#1438857 --- 03/03/14 10:53 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: Rich_Tallcot]
Timbo Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 07/18/12
Posts: 14386
Loc: CNY
Originally Posted By: Rich_Tallcot
While tribal nations do not enjoy direct access to U.S. courts to bring cases against individual states,

Ah, how could I neglect the lead statement?

The FACT is because the states are sovereign and the tribes are NOT, but are federal WARDS.

Your arguments are based on false assumptions, or to be not politically correct otherwise known as lies.
Tribal sovereignty describes the right of federally recognized tribes to govern themselves and the existence of a government-to-government relationship with the United States. Thus a tribe is not a ward of the government, but an independent nation with the right to form its own government, adjudicate legal cases within its borders, levy taxes within its borders, establish its membership, and decide its own future fate. The federal government has a trust responsibility to protect tribal lands, assets, resources and treaty rights.
_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Top
#1438860 --- 03/03/14 11:30 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: Timbo]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
Hint to Timbo: Look up State Reservations on the BIA FAQ link

State Indian reservations, which are lands held in trust by a state for an Indian tribe. With state trust lands title is held by the state on behalf of the tribe and the lands are not subject to state property tax. They are subject to state law, however. State trust lands stem from treaties or other agreements between a tribal group and the state government or the colonial government(s) that preceded it.

Top
#1438880 --- 03/04/14 07:14 AM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: Rich_Tallcot]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32557
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: Rich_Tallcot
Hint to Timbo: Look up State Reservations on the BIA FAQ link


timbo forgot that part
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#1438887 --- 03/04/14 07:47 AM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: Timbo]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32557
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: Rich_Tallcot
Your Wiki posts, which are obviously created by pro tribal supporters, tell half truths as much as the apology you posted.

Tribal sovereignty is not inherent, was never granted by Congress and there is no USC or law granting such. They enjoy such immunity as wards of the federal government. Tribal sovereignty was created by SCOTUS to tribes, as political entities, and they are considering a case now where they may allow lawsuits against tribal commercial businesses.

The Indian Civil Rights Act was an attempt to grant individual tribal members those civil rights granted in the U.S. Constitution, because the Constitution does not apply to tribal trust lands or federal territories. But SCOTUS ruled violations were to be determined by the tribal governments, which are often the very violators of their member civil rights. Without a balance of powers in government, SCOTUS rendered the Indian Civil Rights Act useless.
http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/icra1968.htm

The Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 is covered rather well, but a nice addition to that would have been the Major Crimes Act passed in 1885.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Crimes_Act
The Major Crimes Act (U.S. Statutes at Large, 23:385)[1] is a law passed by the United States Congress in 1885. It places 7 major crimes under federal jurisdiction if they are committed by a Native American against another Native American in Native territory.

The act was passed in response to the Supreme Court of the United States's affirmation of tribal sovereignty in their ruling in Ex parte Crow Dog (109 U.S. 556 (1883)), wherein they overturned the federal court conviction of Brule Lakota sub-chief Crow Dog, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of principal chief Spotted Tail on the Rosebud Indian Reservation in Dakota Territory.[3] The Court reasoned that the ability of the tribe to deal with such an offense was an attribute of tribal sovereignty that had not been specifically abrogated by an act of Congress.

The Major Crimes Act reduced the internal sovereignty of native tribes by removing their ability to try and to punish serious offenders in Indian country. The theory underlying it was that Indian tribes were not competent to deal with serious issues of crime and punishment.[4] The constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act was upheld in United States v. Kagama (118 U.S. 375 (1886)), a case in which two Indians were prosecuted for killing another Indian on a reservation. While the Court agreed that the prosecution of major crimes did not fall within Congress's power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, it ruled that the trust relationship between the federal government and the tribes conferred on Congress both the duty and the power to regulate tribal affairs.[3]

This left tribes with even less jurisdiction. The feds do a terrible job of enforcing laws where they do have jurisdiction and only these laws apply. If you are a tribal member and want continued benefits, you had better not oppose your government including voting for who they tell you to. On State reservations where the tribal government is the aggressor, members are even more so at the mercy of their government. Traditional Iroquois members opposed to gambling have had their homes burned.

As to prior to 1871 and your highlighted in red: The Indians owe no allegiance to a State within which their reservation may be established, and the State gives them no protection."

Your factoid lies are obvious.

Obviously omitted or not mentioned are the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 and The Nationality Act of 1940 8 USC 1401 subchapter 3 part 1 granting citizenship to all born in the U.S. as of this date and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Plus, let us not omit the July 9, 1868 14 th Amendment http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. I guess selective reading of the 14th to note the apportionment excluding Indians not taxes overlooked that they are citizens of the States.

Article 1 Section 8 does start out well but it may be a contention if this is more applicable to federal reservations. However, even the NYS treaties grant the rights to hunt and fish. Being that you probably do not live here, you would not know that.

Another half truth: "When the United States assumed the role of protector of the tribes, it neither denied nor destroyed their sovereignty. As determined in the Supreme Court case United States v. Nice (1916), U.S. citizens are subject to all U.S. laws even if they also have tribal citizenship."

Wow, talk about an OPINION based on a case U.S. v. Nice that dealt with selling liquor to a tribal member on federal trust land.

The ONLY statement that comes close to an alleged sovereignty mention is "In addition to the fact that both acts-the general one of 1887 and the special one of 1889-disclose that the tribal relation and the wardship of the Indians were not to be disturbed by the allotments and trust patents, we find that both Congress and the administrative officers of the government have proceeded upon that theory."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=241&invol=591

See how the FACTS are exposed when given the actual reference and not your cut and paste OPINION or the opinions posted on Wiki?

Yes, when the United States government formed, it replaced the British government as the other sovereignty coexisting in America with the American Indians. At that time the tribes were treated as sovereign because many still had the capability of waging war, which is why tribal affairs were part of the War Department prior to becoming the BIA.

As covered in this post, treaties are no longer made with tribes.

Article I deals with the legislative powers of Congress.
Section 2 describes the powers granted to the House of Representatives.
Section 2, clause 3 describes the apportionment of representatives which was amended in the 14th Amendment ratified July 9, 1868.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

Excluding Indians not taxed was part of the amendment to exclude Indians who were not citizens and those who lived on reservations from being considered in the head count for determining Congressional districts. It was not a grant to exclude Indians from taxation, but a recognition of those that had that status. Your highlight in red giving the OPINION that suggests "that Indians need not be taxed." Or that the power granted to Congress to "regulate commerce with foreign nations…states…and with the Indian tribes. Technically, Congress has no more power over Indian nations than it does over individual states and general congressional laws are not applicable to them."

That hogwash OPINION that congressional laws are not applicable to them was obviously posted by a racist. The arguments based on just such laws are contrary to the poster's arguments the cut and paste post you made.

Another Wiki OPINION noting Article 1 Section 8 "The federal U.S. government has always been the government thatand makes treaties with Indian tribes - not individual states."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_States

Well that is obviously not the case as states had such authority to make treaties prior to joining the Union. As the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua recognized all prior State Treaties as valid. Unfortunately the attorneys miss-representing the State and counties never argued those treaties except in the City of Sherrill case. SCOTUS asked the attorneys representing Sherrill why they had never heard of the Treaty of Ft. Schuyler before. The obvious answer would have been because the attorneys miss-representing the State and counties would have had their money mill diminished.

As to How many disadvantaged indigenous minorities do you suspect were housed, fed, clothed, treated, educated and trained with that money? As to the $1.8 billion in NYS tax credits: Aside from what the purpose was, that is money not collected, not funds available for those who pay no taxes.

NYS politics is corrupt and tax breaks for brownfield and empire zones have always been scams. As pointed out in the opinion article you linked only 1% of the corporations will benefit and that is likely do to their buying the politicians here (there - hah).

As to the discussion on indigenous people and the UN: that is really all Hollywood hoopla and US laws do not really apply except as a minority status. Even Halbritter's tribal news makes this clear. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.co...-experts-152114
Laws Needed to Enforce U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Legal Experts
Carol Berry 11/7/13

Consent is not always legally binding, Washburn continued, and FPIC "needs to be incorporated into U.S. laws," a position echoed by other speakers at the daylong conference, held on the first day of Native American Heritage Month, November 1.

Speakers include tribal government supporters, which of course are not members of the UN. If Congress were to pass a law excepting a race, it would be declared unconstitutional because equality under the law is only granted subterfuge by applying political status to tribes.
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#1438897 --- 03/04/14 08:43 AM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: VM Smith]
tubby Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/12/08
Posts: 1341
Loc: N.Y.
Rich knows so much more than Timblow on this subject it's kind of enjoyable seeing Timblow get blown away trying to debate him.
Originally Posted By: VM Smith
Thanks for your efforts, Rich. You won't ever teach anything to a man who insists he is entitled to his own "facts", but you're certainly able to educate those of us who want to learn.

Top
#1438905 --- 03/04/14 09:34 AM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: tubby]
Timbo Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 07/18/12
Posts: 14386
Loc: CNY
_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Top
#1438913 --- 03/04/14 12:26 PM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: Rich_Tallcot]
Timbo Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 07/18/12
Posts: 14386
Loc: CNY
Originally Posted By: Rich_Tallcot
Yes, they support themselves via non-tribal customers. But their land claim was dismissed because the feds did not join their lawsuit and the State declared sovereign immunity because the State is the sovereign, NOT the tribe. Their latest plea was to the UN, which does NOT trump the US Constitution.

As a signatory to the UN charter, any treaty laws recognized under UN law, are indeed equally as binding as the US Constitution. The same applies to ALL US treaties.
_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Top
#1438943 --- 03/05/14 12:19 AM Re: $150 BILLION Owed NY by Tribes [Re: Timbo]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
You do not even live in New York State as evidenced by not even knowing what tribes we are dealing with. Yes, good synopsis of Treaties with the Seneca Tribe. However that excludes the State Treaties with the Cayuga and Oneida which were recognized as valid in the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua, 1788 Treaty of Ft. Schuyler and 1789 Treaty of Albany. And don't exclude the 1927 International Tribunal (precursor to the UN) ruling on the State treaty with the Cayuga ordering Congress to pay them $100,000 as one of their six FINAL settlements. THERE's your UN ruling. Keep trying, this is getting humorous. You can't find everything on Google.

Top
Page 70 of 110 < 1 2 ... 68 69 70 71 72 ... 109 110 >