Could the POTUS do anything about this unfair problem?
March 5, 2017 at 10:33 am
#1678915
The Millelacs Treaty ?
-
March 5, 2017 at 10:44 am #1678917
Should, could, would. No, he might be able to find better things to spend his time on. Although you may want to start a Twitter campaign, that might draw his attention.
March 5, 2017 at 11:09 am #1678919Didn’t mean to sound snarky but the subject is old and nobody that counts cares. If your congress people don’t care (and they don’t) and your Governor doesn’t care (he only cares for the camera’s) you will have a hard time getting the Presidents attention. The issue is a national issue and there isn’t enough outrage nationally to get it looked at. Remember it was a passed law at the national level that allowed the Casino’s in the first place. It was those funds that allowed the tribes to push reservation boundaries and seek to have the treaties enforce. Now you can’t find hardly anybody who hasn’t been to a Casino. They are a part of American life just like liquor, drugs, tobacco and corruption.
So no, the President isn’t going to take a look.
March 5, 2017 at 1:13 pm #1678962Could the POTUS do anything about this unfair problem?
Surely the irony of calling these treaties an “unfair problem” cannot be lost even on you.
And if by “do something” you mean tear them up like a tin pot dictator would, then no. Trump can’t throw them out.
Grouse
The "IGH"...March 5, 2017 at 1:19 pm #1678965Can he? The quick answer is yes. Will he? Not in his first 47.5 months in office but as he is pardoning murders and the such (as all Presidents do in their last two weeks…) he may but don’t hold your breath…RR
March 5, 2017 at 5:19 pm #1679001Maybe steve fellegy knows Donald! Just maybe he needs to be made aware of whats gong on.
March 5, 2017 at 5:21 pm #1679002Most (like 99% ) of Minnesotans don’t know or care whats going on.
March 5, 2017 at 5:30 pm #1679003Mn needs its now casinos that are state run.
March 22, 2017 at 1:30 pm #1683037the treaties can be modified or cancelled by the POTUS
..its in the treaty
Mahtomedi, MNMarch 22, 2017 at 1:36 pm #1683042The supreme court ruled the treaty “Exists at the pleasure of the President.” Since the treaty was never terminated, the treaty remains in effect.
The president can indeed dissolve the treaty with the swipe of a pen.
-J.
Mahtomedi, MNMarch 22, 2017 at 1:38 pm #1683043That said, if there’s any president who would look to remove rights or privileges of a minority group in the US it would be Donald.
March 22, 2017 at 1:53 pm #1683060By then he will have enough court time to be considered part of the court staff.
The "IGH"...March 22, 2017 at 2:02 pm #1683063The supreme court ruled the treaty “Exists at the pleasure of the President.” Since the treaty was never terminated, the treaty remains in effect.
The president can indeed dissolve the treaty with the swipe of a pen.
-J.
…and history has shown that IF this was to be done it would be in the same swipe of the pen as he was pardoning murderers and crooks in his last days in office. It could be done! RR
The "IGH"...
Mahtomedi, MNMarch 22, 2017 at 2:16 pm #1683076<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>philtickelson wrote:</div>
Not enough potential money in it. Oil pipeline issues, sure, walleye resort problems on ONE lake in Minnesota.Fuhgeddaboutit.
One?
Obviously it’s more than just Mille Lacs, but that’s the burning platform is it not?
The "IGH"...March 22, 2017 at 2:19 pm #1683078<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>roosterrouster wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>philtickelson wrote:</div>
Not enough potential money in it. Oil pipeline issues, sure, walleye resort problems on ONE lake in Minnesota.Fuhgeddaboutit.
One?
Obviously it’s more than just Mille Lacs, but that’s the burning platform is it not?
Burning? Yes. Are there more? Just throw a dart (or a spear…) at a map…RR
March 22, 2017 at 2:30 pm #1683082The supreme court ruled the treaty “Exists at the pleasure of the President.” Since the treaty was never terminated, the treaty remains in effect.
The president can indeed dissolve the treaty with the swipe of a pen.
-J.
…And A judge in say, Hawaii could use his his pen to block the president.
March 22, 2017 at 2:35 pm #1683087https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Nothing can happen if we don’t try, that I can guarantee.
Remember, its the squeaky wheel that gets the oil.
The "IGH"...March 22, 2017 at 2:41 pm #1683089<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jon Jordan wrote:</div>
The supreme court ruled the treaty “Exists at the pleasure of the President.” Since the treaty was never terminated, the treaty remains in effect.The president can indeed dissolve the treaty with the swipe of a pen.
-J.
…And A judge in say, Hawaii could use his his pen to block the president.
Huh? Please explain (or produce evidence to this…) because I have never read or heard that at any event or function I have ever been at…RR
March 22, 2017 at 3:29 pm #1683101March 22, 2017 at 4:02 pm #1683120<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>belletaine wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jon Jordan wrote:</div>
The supreme court ruled the treaty “Exists at the pleasure of the President.” Since the treaty was never terminated, the treaty remains in effect.The president can indeed dissolve the treaty with the swipe of a pen.
-J.
…And A judge in say, Hawaii could use his his pen to block the president.
Huh? Please explain (or produce evidence to this…) because I have never read or heard that at any event or function I have ever been at…RR
I, personally, would be shocked if anything relating to any of the three branches could be accomplished with the stroke of a pen.
I’m certainly not as well versed regarding the legal aspects of the treaty as most.
March 22, 2017 at 4:03 pm #1683121<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jon Jordan wrote:</div>
The supreme court ruled the treaty “Exists at the pleasure of the President.” Since the treaty was never terminated, the treaty remains in effect.The president can indeed dissolve the treaty with the swipe of a pen.
-J.
…And A judge in say, Hawaii could use his his pen to block the president.
thank god for that. A ruler without checks and balances is not a ruler but a dictator
March 22, 2017 at 5:28 pm #1683140President Taylor signed an Executive Order in 1850 that said the following:
“The privileges granted temporarily to the Chippewa Indians of Mississippi by the Fifth Article of the Treaty made with them on the 29th of July 1837, `of hunting, fishing and gathering the wild rice, upon the lands, the rivers and the lakes included in the territory ceded’ by that treaty to the United States … are hereby revoked; and all of the said Indians remaining on the lands ceded as aforesaid, are required to remove to their unceded lands.”
The 1999 Supreme Court decision found that the President didn’t have the authority he claimed in the Executive Order.
Yes, of course it’s more complicated than that. It’s irresponsible to claim otherwise.
March 22, 2017 at 5:53 pm #1683145<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>belletaine wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Jon Jordan wrote:</div>
The supreme court ruled the treaty “Exists at the pleasure of the President.” Since the treaty was never terminated, the treaty remains in effect.The president can indeed dissolve the treaty with the swipe of a pen.
-J.
…And A judge in say, Hawaii could use his his pen to block the president.
thank god for that. A ruler without checks and balances is not a ruler but a dictator
Are you kidding ?????
What about that America hating shmuck that was the last potus ????March 22, 2017 at 6:42 pm #1683159we need a 3rd party with a foundation based protecting Gun rights, middle class orientation, focusing locking up dead beat dads, supporting sportsman’s activity
and state run casinos. a threat of 4 state run casinos at both ends of 35 e and 35 w intersections, Woodbury and Long lake. That would give some bargaining power towards “treaty rights”March 22, 2017 at 8:27 pm #1683201<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>philtickelson wrote:</div>
Not enough potential money in it. Oil pipeline issues, sure, walleye resort problems on ONE lake in Minnesota.Fuhgeddaboutit.
One?
Don’t forget the hundreds maybe thousands of lakes in northern Wisconsin.
March 25, 2017 at 7:49 pm #1683933Like rubbing salt in a wound….the band had a party yesterday
Attachments:
IMG_0430.png
March 25, 2017 at 8:19 pm #1683944Like rubbing salt in a wound….the band had a party yesterday
I suppose…they’re entitled to their celebration. Reality is that 90% of them don’t really care about the treaty, just there for the picnic/community party. And that is okay. It’s the other 10% or less that are active in the “exercising” of treaty rights. And the same for the Wisconsin bands, and any other Ojibwa bands. 90% or more of them are living how the live careless about treaty rights.
The "IGH"...March 27, 2017 at 9:02 am #1684192You can do your part to help persuade “The Donald” to sign an executive order!
http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/778299/96711c17f4/1481523659/d5e81862ec/
The topic ‘The Millelacs Treaty ?’ is closed to new replies.