The Coalition of the Swilling

The difference is that the Native American exemptions are covered by the Constitution (or at least that has been the interpretation since day one of "excluding Indians not taxed"). Beyond that, the Indian tribes are included in the interstate commerce clause. So basically, you step onto a reservation, you step off of American soil.

As far as how we stop Sharia, that's pretty easy, we say no.

"So basically, you step onto a reservation, you step off of American soil."

Uh, wrong. Indian tribes are sovereign, but dependent (rather than independent) nations: while their sovereignty is inherent and predates the federal constitution, they are now essentially wards of the federal government, with whatever level of autonomy Congress chooses to give them. Congress could (and IMHO, should) abolish them all tomorrow.

When it comes to criminal jurisdiction, most states don't have any on the reservations, but some do, because Congress has given it to them. This is getting into generalities, but regardless of whether the state has or doesn't have criminal jurisdiction concurrent with them, the tribes generally prosecute minor crimes, but the feds deal with the serious ones (and under the Federal Assimilative Crimes Act that applies to all federal enclaves within state borders, the US Attorney "adopts" the criminal law of the host state as federal criminal law, to be prosecuted in federal rather than state or tribal court).

Of course, the case in the article goes to civil rather than criminal litigation, and there the tribes' powers tend to be more sweeping. As I remember it, civil plaintiffs often have to exhaust their remedies in tribal court before they can seek relief in federal court and, yes, many federal statutes that would apply almost anywhere else don't apply in such circumstances. Keep in mind, however, that many federal statutes also don't apply when one is suing a state rather than another private party: in both cases, you run up against sovereign immunity. Every state has a QUALIFIED waiver of its sovereign immunity, which basically means it allows itself to be sued, but under special and more complicated rules (that vary from state to state); being cynical by my limited experience with such things, I assume the tribes' waivers of sovereign immunity are much more narrow, if at all. OTOH, the states are protected by the 11th Amendment from being sued in federal court (even on most federal claims), whereas the Indian tribes aren't.

FYI, I don't remember all the details about this sort of thing as much as I did when I was (briefly) suckered into writing about them professionally. Some version of that damn bill comes up every session, or at least every year.

Really, Dave? I thought the sovereignty of the tribes was as extensive as kg says. But the indians are clearly diferent from the muslims because there were all these prexisting treaties with them at the time of the constitution.

BUT the point here is that NO WAY should muslims be allowed to do this.

And neither should the Catholic Church be allowed to set up Inquisitional Courts, either (sorry 'Fly. Now take off that "Torquemada's My Man!" t-shirt!).

Everyone here must be judged solely by the precedures set out in the Constitution.

The Canadians woke up AFTERWARDS. We need to shut the whole concept down now. It starts with a kid in school who wants a seperate room to pray in at lunchtime and spreads from there; one insidious inch by insidious inch.

"Congress could (and IMHO, should) abolish them all tomorrow."

Amen, but the casino lobby is too strong.

Heheheheh. Silly Bingley. We get hats!

I know you have a comfy chair hidden somewhere, 'Fly...

Yeah, we Indians have a special status because you stole the land from us.

In some ways, the current status of Indian tribes is even stranger than Dave says. They can build casinos largely unfettered by state laws, provided the state allows gambling (not including lotteries or horse racing). But if the state doesn't allow gambling (not including lotteries or horse racing), they can't.

Or something like that. No, I don't really understand it either.

Ken, I'm convinced that absolutely no one truly understands even a fraction of this area of law, as it's so deliberately convoluted.

Bingley, I made an effort to point out to my bosses at the Florida House that, thanks to how Congress treats the Indians, tribal sovereignty is some ways MORE extensive in the US than what's afforded to REAL foreign countries under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Which is completely insane.

I caught a lot of talk on the radio in MA last week about legalizing slots in the state, currently a big issue. But man it was confusing (no less because the talking heads almost certainly have no more actual knowledge of the laws than I do).

I wonder, if one thoughlessly discards a candy bar wrapper on the floor of an Indian casino, does a stoic pit boss stare into the distance and shed a single, noble tear?

No, but when they catch you you sure get one heck of a wampum!

And their kids will tepee your house.

Heheheheh. I knew I could count on you guys. Another feather in your headdress...

It's only a headdress when Bingley's on the firewater. For me, it's a lampshade.

...it's a lampshade.

How?