There’s no court decision that does any of those things. None have created special classes based on the 1837 Treaty. The Constitution recognizes the Tribes as sovereign entities (Article I.8). It seems that your problem is with the Constitution and the Framers rather than the judges and their decisions.
==========================================================
That’s your interpretation, not mine. We see very differently on this issue.
Quote:
How does the fact that our country at one time did not allow women and black folks to vote, which was corrected for both well before I was born correlate to ” extra ” rights being given to an Indian tribe based upon a 1837 treaty which on its face is unconstitutional, but we instead choose to selectively apply a few parts as needed ?
My comment about women and black folks voting was in direct response to the following quote:
“Here’s a new idea, how about all american citizens enjoy equal rights ?
I do not seem to remember our founding fathers endorsing ” extra ” rights under our constitution […]”
I dunno, it just seems odd to refer to the Founding Fathers as somehow being stewards of equal rights, that’s all. They very clearly and incontrovertibly endorsed “extra rights” for some people. And yes, amendments have “fixed” those issues, but the Founding Fathers certainly didn’t pass those amendments.
Other than that, I’m as disgusted by the recent decision as all y’all.
winnebagoviking, you seem smarter than me on this topic, and I don’t think you are endorsing the actions of a few, but is there anything that allows the wildlife “hunted and gathered” to be sold on the black market? Maybe the judge in this case was focused on the gathering rights aspect, what allows a person to be above the treaty to sell? Judges are able to interpret policies and treaties along with the constitution, it’s when they cross the line and make laws is where I have a real problem. Not that I’m opposed to a [censored] union, here in Iowa the IA Supreme Court made a law allowing [censored] marrage to be legal. Look up how many of those guys are still on the IA Supreme Court. The law can’t be voted on the way it was set up, so the next best thing happened and the people spoke at the election poles.
Is this the same case that had non-indian buyers? What happened to them, has their case gone to court?
Quote:
Is this the same case that had non-indian buyers? What happened to them, has their case gone to court?
I would have to assume since the band members cases got tossed out, theirs did too. 
If you fined the buyers $10,000 for each fish purchased you would soon take care of any demand for poached fish.
But, then you would need to clarify the definition of “poached”.
The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round.
Quote:
winnebagoviking, you seem smarter than me on this topic, and I don’t think you are endorsing the actions of a few, but is there anything that allows the wildlife “hunted and gathered” to be sold on the black market? Maybe the judge in this case was focused on the gathering rights aspect, what allows a person to be above the treaty to sell?
The Judge used the language and previous rulings on the Treaty by the US Supreme Court (to which he is bound to uphold) and the language of the Lacey Act to show there is no Federal jurisdiction to prosecute those tribal members charged in this incident. They also broke Tribal law; hopefully, the Tribes will prosecute accordingly.
Quote:
Judges are able to interpret policies and treaties along with the constitution, it’s when they cross the line and make laws is where I have a real problem. Not that I’m opposed to a [censored] union, here in Iowa the IA Supreme Court made a law allowing [censored] marrage to be legal. Look up how many of those guys are still on the IA Supreme Court. The law can’t be voted on the way it was set up, so the next best thing happened and the people spoke at the election poles.
The Iowa Supreme Court did not ‘make’ a law — they held the state’s limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. You wouldn’t say the judges who ruled as unconstitutional Illinois’ ban on conceal carry “made” a law, would you?
Quote:
Is this the same case that had non-indian buyers? What happened to them, has their case gone to court?
The prosecutions are moving forward. Alan Hemme, the alleged buyer who owns the Big Fish restaurant moved for dismissal on similar grounds as the tribal members but the judge denied his motion because he was not protected by the 1837 Treaty. Likewise, the prosecution of a member of the Red Lake Band continues because the Red Lake Band is not part of the 1837 Treaty.
Since you seemed to have looked into this deeper than most, is there any word on the bands doing anything with these 3 guys?
I also wonder what Reyes, Lyons and Tibbetts mean in indian. 
I wonder if those guys live on the reservation and/or what % indian they are.
I wonder a lot.
Quote:
Since you seemed to have looked into this deeper than most, is there any word on the bands doing anything with these 3 guys?
Well, from what I read today, it appears pretty much everyone got off scot free, and the tribe is not going to do anything under their “conversation” code about the poachers ….. I wish I could say I was surprised … 
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
