Time: Thu Sep 11 16:58:09 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA15113;
Thu, 11 Sep 1997 16:57:35 -0700 (MST)
by usr03.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA21829;
Thu, 11 Sep 1997 16:53:57 -0700 (MST)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 16:53:46 -0700
To: TWStough@aol.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Asking a personal favor....
Did you catch this:
"tribes must waive sovereign immunity
before they can receive any federal funds"
Man, oh man, I could talk for days about
this one sentence.
No, make that "months," not "days"!!
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
copy: Supreme Law School
At 07:21 PM 9/11/97 -0400, you wrote:
>
>If you feel that 500 years is enough for any rape, take some action to stop
>another rape from occuring to the American Indians. Seriously consider
>making the calls or sending faxes.
>
>I accomplished this in a few seconds! Here is how I did it. I have both
>local and Washington numbers for my Senators and Representative in my phone
>book in a separate location. I logged off the net, hit print, selected fax,
>selected the three numbers and a five page fax went to each one.
>
>=========================================
>
>Subj: IP: Asking a personal favor....
>Date: 97-09-11 16:49:34 EDT
>From: ishgooda@tdi.net (ishgooda)
>Reply-to: ishgooda@tdi.net (ishgooda)
>To: ignition-point@majordomo.pobox.com
>
>Dear Friends,
>
>I have a rather serious request to make, important enough that I will resort
>to begging: Please make two phone calls today, one to each of your state's
>two U.S. Senators.
>
>The reason I am begging for your help.... is because Native Americans are
>on the under attack, on the brink of one of the most disastrous (and
>blatantly anti-Constitutional) government policies perpetrated against them
>in the past century. This attack comes courtesy of two riders (sections 118
>and 120) that have been added to H.R. 2107, the Appropriations bill that
>funds the Interior Department.
>
>These two riders were deviously slipped into the package by Senator Slade
>Gorton of Washington, who has a long history of vindictive, anti-Indian
>attacks throughout his political career (especially when he was Washington*s
>Attorney General).
>
>I am asking you to call both your Senators (If you do not know your
>Senators* phone numbers, call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121
>and they will connect you to the office you request). Tell them your name,
>the city and state where you live (i.e., to emphasize that you are their
>constituent), and then demand that they:
>
>(a) call for the removal of sections 118 and 120 from Interior
>Appropriations bill HR 2107, and
>
>(b) vote against the entire bill, unless these two riders have both been
>stricken from it.
>
>You might also urge your Senators to read carefully the editorial by Senator
>Campbell and Senator McCain, in Wednesday*s edition (10th) of the Washington
>Post (titled *Keeping Our Word To The Indians*).
>
>Senate debate for this bill is expected to begin either today (Thursday Sept
>11th) or tomorrow, so please call today! (although it's not too late to
>call tomorrow or even next week) Although the White House has indicated
>Clinton would veto the bill if it includes those two riders, we don*t want
>to risk having to count on him to keep his word (!), which even if he did,
>would create additional work for Congress than if they simply took these
>sections out the first time around.
>
>= = = = = = = =
>Now, here's why this is so damaging (both to Indians, *and* to U.S.
>Constitutional principles):
>
>These riders would undermine Indian Nations* right to self-government, would
>unilaterally repudiate important obligations to Indian Nations that were
>contracted by the United States in treaties that are still legally binding,
>and would utterly devastate what remaining Indian sovereignty the U.S.
>hasn*t already tried to dismantle. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt called
>Gorton's proposed changes "one of the most radical and unjust of a stream of
>recent congressional proposals," which would "overturn almost two centuries
>of jurisprudence."
>
>Two excellent editorials have been published this week that analyze the
>effects of these riders, which I can forward to you via E-mail if you are
>interested. One is the above-mentioned Washington Post piece by Senators
>Campbell & McCain, which deals primarily with the Section 120 rider. The
>other article, primarily addressing the section 118 rider, was written by
>Joseph Kalt (a Harvard University Professor) and Jonathon Taylor (a director
>at The Economics Resource Group, an economic development institute). Let me
>know if you*d like a copy of these.
>
>In the meantime, I am providing here my own summary of these two riders. If
>you aren*t interested in the details, please skip to the end, where I
>mention that this is not a partisan issue.
>
>SECTION 118
>.....requires that the standard BIA funds received by Indian tribes be
>subject to means-testing. There are a number of problems with this, but
>I*ll only mention here the two most serious problems:
>
>First, it would discriminate against Indian tribal governments. No state or
>local government is means-tested for federal funding eligibility, and just
>like states, Indian tribal governments are explicitly considered separate
>and sovereign governmental entities (see the U.S. Constitution, Article 1,
>Section 8, Clause 3; in fact, there a variety of federal programs which
>identify Indian Tribes as "states", such as the Community Services Block
>Grant, Low Income Housing Energy Assistance Program, the old Revenue
>Sharing Program, some EPA programs, even the 1937 Housing Act).
>
>Secondly, Indian tribal governments have an a priori right to certain
>federal funds that not even state governments have. People who aren't
>familiar with Constitutional law and the history of federal Indian treaties,
>assume that these funds Indian Tribes receive are handouts (like regular
>welfare programs). However, these funds for health, education, development,
>etc. that Indian tribes receive are not charity or dole, but fiduciary
>RESPONSIBILITIES of the government, the terms of contracts negotiated in
>return for millions of square miles of land that we now call the United
>States. The treaties are essentially perpetual mortgages, leasing land to
>the United States (forever), in exchange for certain services (also
>forever), which constitutes a legally binding contract. Just as it is
>preposterous to means-test your creditors to decide if they are really poor
>enough to deserve to be paid back, the economic status of Indian tribes is
>irrelevant to the amount the U.S.A. has contracted to pay. And Senator
>Gorton conveniently *forgets* to mention this rather enormous difference in
>context.
>
>Senator Gorton argues for this by commenting on the huge disparities among
>the various tribes in economic well-being, and the BIA*s gross mismanagement
>of funds and inequities in administering and distributing these funds. This
>is true enough, but it*s a smokescreen. The BIA needs to be radically
>revamped (if not completely dissolved), but means-testing the tribes does
>not alter these problems. It only gives federal politicians like Gorton,
>who would have the U.S. weasel out of its contracts, a rationalization for
>reneging on its debt obligations. Most damning is the fact that even the
>poorest of the Indian tribes -- the ones who would supposedly benefit most
>from his plan -- categorically oppose means-testing too.
>
>SECTION 120
>.....would require tribes to waive their sovereign immunity from suit before
>they can receive any federal funds, as well as grant original jurisdiction
>to non-Tribal courts for any suit involving an Indian Tribe. Again, I will
>mention only the two most serious problems with this rider:
>
>First, it is discriminatory treatment, since state governments (and the
>federal government as well) currently enjoy this same legal right to
>sovereign immunity, and as previously mentioned, the U.S. Constitution,
>various Supreme Court decisions, and 200 years of federal Indian law have
>all firmly established that tribal governments are at least equivalent to
>states as separate and sovereign governmental entities. Indian
>governments, as well as federal and local agencies, often evoke the immunity
>status as a way to guarantee that projects like sewage systems or road
>construction go ahead without the threat of financially crushing lawsuits
>
>Gorton claims that states have eliminated the exercise of sovereign
>immunity, or severely limited it, and that only Indian tribes continue to
>claim full sovereign immunity. This is an outright lie, as demonstrated by
>two states just within the past year -- both ironically asserting sovereign
>immunity in suits against Indian tribes (Seminole v. Florida, Idaho v. Cour
>D*Alene). Furthermore, just this summer the Supreme Court firmly supported
>the exercise of sovereign immunity in this latter case, saying: "Today ...
>it is acknowledged that States have real and vital interests in preferring
>their own forum in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to
>be disregarded.... The dignity and status of its statehood allows Idaho to
>rely on its Eleventh Amendment immunity and to insist upon responding to
>these claims in its own courts, which are open to hear and determine the
>case.*
>
>Second, it makes a complete mockery of the very notion of sovereignty -- but
>only for Indian governments! -- by granting original jurisdiction of ANY
>suit involving an Indian Tribe to a non-Tribal court. That*s equivalent to
>requiring any suit involving the state of Pennsylvania must be heard in a
>court within the jurisdiction of another state. It removes ALL jurisdiction
>that currently exists on Indian lands, which are legally considered
>sovereign territory.
>
>Senator Gorton*s explanation for this mind-boggling redefinition of
>*sovereignty* is to obtain a *neutral* court to protect the rights of those
>non-Indian individuals (he estimates there are 300,000) who live on
>territory that belongs to Indian Nations, and therefore are legally
>residents of Indian Reservations. Gorton*s concept of neutrality is simple:
>If a Pennsylvania citizen decides to go live in Maryland, and while living
>there breaks a Maryland law, then the Maryland courts are not allowed to
>adjudicate the case, because original jurisdiction must be given to a
>*neutral* court in another state (probably Pennsylvania....) Not only does
>this provision directly contradict the hallowed principles of
>self-determination and self-government for which this country has fought
>many wars (including the original one!), but it completely violates the
>Constitutionally stipulated processes for relationships between the U.S. and
>the Indian Nations.
>
>= = = = = = =
>NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE -- it does not reflect differences
>between Republican and Democrat interpretations or platforms.
>
>Although most Democrats have traditionally supported the concepts of tribal
>sovereignty, increased self-determination, and federal responsibility
>toward fulfilling treaty obligations, in recent decades these principles
>have also been championed by Republican presidents in the past few decades.
>
>In 1970 President Nixon sought to shift federal policy away from federal
>paternalism and colonial policies toward Indian nations, and began new
>policies to promote increased self-government for Indian tribes. In
>addition, President Bush in 1991 signed an executive agreement that greatly
>expanded the range of tribal sovereignty and control for the Cherokee
>Nation, who now functions very much like a state in administering its own
>government programs for its citizens (as do some other tribes who are
>increasingly self-sufficient).
>
>As further evidence of the bipartisan-ness of this issue, note that the two
>authors of the above-mentioned Washington Post editorial are the two highest
>ranking Republicans on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs: Campbell is
>the current chair, McCain was previously the chair in the 104th Congress.
>Four other past chairmen of this committee, of BOTH parties, are also against
>the riders.
>
>The problem we face now is that many Congresspersons among the newer influx
>of Republicans, are either immensely ignorant of U.S. history and
>Constitutional law, or else like Senator Gorton, are simply vindictive
>against Indians and wish to avoid federal responsibility in order to further
>their own selfish or racist interests.
>
>PLEASE CALL YOUR SENATORS TODAY!!
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>-<<----- END FORWARDED MESSAGE ------>>
>
>---------------------
>Forwarded message:
>From: ishgooda@tdi.net (ishgooda)
>Reply-to: ishgooda@tdi.net (ishgooda)
>To: ignition-point@majordomo.pobox.com
>Date: 97-09-11 16:49:34 EDT
>
>
>
><<<----- previously howled ------->>>
>
>Dear Friends,
>
>I have a rather serious request to make, important enough that I will resort
>to begging: Please make two phone calls today, one to each of your state's
>two U.S. Senators.
>
>The reason I am begging for your help.... is because Native Americans are
>on the under attack, on the brink of one of the most disastrous (and
>blatantly anti-Constitutional) government policies perpetrated against them
>in the past century. This attack comes courtesy of two riders (sections 118
>and 120) that have been added to H.R. 2107, the Appropriations bill that
>funds the Interior Department.
>
>These two riders were deviously slipped into the package by Senator Slade
>Gorton of Washington, who has a long history of vindictive, anti-Indian
>attacks throughout his political career (especially when he was Washington*s
>Attorney General).
>
>I am asking you to call both your Senators (If you do not know your
>Senators* phone numbers, call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121
>and they will connect you to the office you request). Tell them your name,
>the city and state where you live (i.e., to emphasize that you are their
>constituent), and then demand that they:
>
>(a) call for the removal of sections 118 and 120 from Interior
>Appropriations bill HR 2107, and
>
>(b) vote against the entire bill, unless these two riders have both been
>stricken from it.
>
>You might also urge your Senators to read carefully the editorial by Senator
>Campbell and Senator McCain, in Wednesday*s edition (10th) of the Washington
>Post (titled *Keeping Our Word To The Indians*).
>
>Senate debate for this bill is expected to begin either today (Thursday Sept
>11th) or tomorrow, so please call today! (although it's not too late to
>call tomorrow or even next week) Although the White House has indicated
>Clinton would veto the bill if it includes those two riders, we don*t want
>to risk having to count on him to keep his word (!), which even if he did,
>would create additional work for Congress than if they simply took these
>sections out the first time around.
>
>= = = = = = = =
>Now, here's why this is so damaging (both to Indians, *and* to U.S.
>Constitutional principles):
>
>These riders would undermine Indian Nations* right to self-government, would
>unilaterally repudiate important obligations to Indian Nations that were
>contracted by the United States in treaties that are still legally binding,
>and would utterly devastate what remaining Indian sovereignty the U.S.
>hasn*t already tried to dismantle. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt called
>Gorton's proposed changes "one of the most radical and unjust of a stream of
>recent congressional proposals," which would "overturn almost two centuries
>of jurisprudence."
>
>Two excellent editorials have been published this week that analyze the
>effects of these riders, which I can forward to you via E-mail if you are
>interested. One is the above-mentioned Washington Post piece by Senators
>Campbell & McCain, which deals primarily with the Section 120 rider. The
>other article, primarily addressing the section 118 rider, was written by
>Joseph Kalt (a Harvard University Professor) and Jonathon Taylor (a director
>at The Economics Resource Group, an economic development institute). Let me
>know if you*d like a copy of these.
>
>In the meantime, I am providing here my own summary of these two riders. If
>you aren*t interested in the details, please skip to the end, where I
>mention that this is not a partisan issue.
>
>SECTION 118
>.....requires that the standard BIA funds received by Indian tribes be
>subject to means-testing. There are a number of problems with this, but
>I*ll only mention here the two most serious problems:
>
>First, it would discriminate against Indian tribal governments. No state or
>local government is means-tested for federal funding eligibility, and just
>like states, Indian tribal governments are explicitly considered separate
>and sovereign governmental entities (see the U.S. Constitution, Article 1,
>Section 8, Clause 3; in fact, there a variety of federal programs which
>identify Indian Tribes as "states", such as the Community Services Block
>Grant, Low Income Housing Energy Assistance Program, the old Revenue
>Sharing Program, some EPA programs, even the 1937 Housing Act).
>
>Secondly, Indian tribal governments have an a priori right to certain
>federal funds that not even state governments have. People who aren't
>familiar with Constitutional law and the history of federal Indian treaties,
>assume that these funds Indian Tribes receive are handouts (like regular
>welfare programs). However, these funds for health, education, development,
>etc. that Indian tribes receive are not charity or dole, but fiduciary
>RESPONSIBILITIES of the government, the terms of contracts negotiated in
>return for millions of square miles of land that we now call the United
>States. The treaties are essentially perpetual mortgages, leasing land to
>the United States (forever), in exchange for certain services (also
>forever), which constitutes a legally binding contract. Just as it is
>preposterous to means-test your creditors to decide if they are really poor
>enough to deserve to be paid back, the economic status of Indian tribes is
>irrelevant to the amount the U.S.A. has contracted to pay. And Senator
>Gorton conveniently *forgets* to mention this rather enormous difference in
>context.
>
>Senator Gorton argues for this by commenting on the huge disparities among
>the various tribes in economic well-being, and the BIA*s gross mismanagement
>of funds and inequities in administering and distributing these funds. This
>is true enough, but it*s a smokescreen. The BIA needs to be radically
>revamped (if not completely dissolved), but means-testing the tribes does
>not alter these problems. It only gives federal politicians like Gorton,
>who would have the U.S. weasel out of its contracts, a rationalization for
>reneging on its debt obligations. Most damning is the fact that even the
>poorest of the Indian tribes -- the ones who would supposedly benefit most
>from his plan -- categorically oppose means-testing too.
>
>SECTION 120
>.....would require tribes to waive their sovereign immunity from suit before
>they can receive any federal funds, as well as grant original jurisdiction
>to non-Tribal courts for any suit involving an Indian Tribe. Again, I will
>mention only the two most serious problems with this rider:
>
>First, it is discriminatory treatment, since state governments (and the
>federal government as well) currently enjoy this same legal right to
>sovereign immunity, and as previously mentioned, the U.S. Constitution,
>various Supreme Court decisions, and 200 years of federal Indian law have
>all firmly established that tribal governments are at least equivalent to
>states as separate and sovereign governmental entities. Indian
>governments, as well as federal and local agencies, often evoke the immunity
>status as a way to guarantee that projects like sewage systems or road
>construction go ahead without the threat of financially crushing lawsuits
>
>Gorton claims that states have eliminated the exercise of sovereign
>immunity, or severely limited it, and that only Indian tribes continue to
>claim full sovereign immunity. This is an outright lie, as demonstrated by
>two states just within the past year -- both ironically asserting sovereign
>immunity in suits against Indian tribes (Seminole v. Florida, Idaho v. Cour
>D*Alene). Furthermore, just this summer the Supreme Court firmly supported
>the exercise of sovereign immunity in this latter case, saying: "Today ...
>it is acknowledged that States have real and vital interests in preferring
>their own forum in suits brought against them, interests that ought not to
>be disregarded.... The dignity and status of its statehood allows Idaho to
>rely on its Eleventh Amendment immunity and to insist upon responding to
>these claims in its own courts, which are open to hear and determine the
>case.*
>
>Second, it makes a complete mockery of the very notion of sovereignty -- but
>only for Indian governments! -- by granting original jurisdiction of ANY
>suit involving an Indian Tribe to a non-Tribal court. That*s equivalent to
>requiring any suit involving the state of Pennsylvania must be heard in a
>court within the jurisdiction of another state. It removes ALL jurisdiction
>that currently exists on Indian lands, which are legally considered
>sovereign territory.
>
>Senator Gorton*s explanation for this mind-boggling redefinition of
>*sovereignty* is to obtain a *neutral* court to protect the rights of those
>non-Indian individuals (he estimates there are 300,000) who live on
>territory that belongs to Indian Nations, and therefore are legally
>residents of Indian Reservations. Gorton*s concept of neutrality is simple:
>If a Pennsylvania citizen decides to go live in Maryland, and while living
>there breaks a Maryland law, then the Maryland courts are not allowed to
>adjudicate the case, because original jurisdiction must be given to a
>*neutral* court in another state (probably Pennsylvania....) Not only does
>this provision directly contradict the hallowed principles of
>self-determination and self-government for which this country has fought
>many wars (including the original one!), but it completely violates the
>Constitutionally stipulated processes for relationships between the U.S. and
>the Indian Nations.
>
>= = = = = = =
>NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE -- it does not reflect differences
>between Republican and Democrat interpretations or platforms.
>
>Although most Democrats have traditionally supported the concepts of tribal
>sovereignty, increased self-determination, and federal responsibility
>toward fulfilling treaty obligations, in recent decades these principles
>have also been championed by Republican presidents in the past few decades.
>In 1970 President Nixon sought to shift federal policy away from federal
>paternalism and colonial policies toward Indian nations, and began new
>policies to promote increased self-government for Indian tribes. In
>addition, President Bush in 1991 signed an executive agreement that greatly
>expanded the range of tribal sovereignty and control for the Cherokee
>Nation, who now functions very much like a state in administering its own
>government programs for its citizens (as do some other tribes who are
>increasingly self-sufficient).
>
>As further evidence of the bipartisan-ness of this issue, note that the two
>authors of the above-mentioned Washington Post editorial are the two highest
>ranking Republicans on the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs: Campbell is
>the current chair, McCain was previously the chair in the 104th Congress.
>Four other past chairmen of this committee, of BOTH parties, are also
>against the riders.
>
>The problem we face now is that many Congresspersons among the newer influx
>of Republicans, are either immensely ignorant of U.S. history and
>Constitutional law, or else like Senator Gorton, are simply vindictive
>against Indians and wish to avoid federal responsibility in order to further
>their own selfish or racist interests.
>
>PLEASE CALL YOUR SENATORS TODAY!!
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>-<<----- END FORWARDED MESSAGE ------>>
>
>
>
>
>
>**********************************************
>To subscribe or unsubscribe, email:
> majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com
>with the message:
> subscribe ignition-point email@address
>or
> unsubscribe ignition-point email@address
>**********************************************
>http://www.telepath.com/believer
>**********************************************
>
>
>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail