Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (61528)	12/13/2002 10:01:31 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

>>I did not realize the definition of "sovereignty" was so flexible.<< Apparently so. The word I used, complex, I think is more accurate than flexible, but I assume by flexible you mean that it's capable of different meanings in different contexts.

To: zonder who wrote (61528)	12/13/2002 12:57:29 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 281500

Indian reservations were established by the United States Supreme Court in the early 19th century as "Dependent Domestic Nations." Not sure of what that means? Neither are the U.S. courts, which have been struggling to define that phrase for nearly 200 years. The most basic concept of the reservation system is that tribes are endowed with a certain amount of SOVEREIGNTY. Always a nebulous concept, the notion of sovereignty has been greatly refined by the court system in recent years. Economic issues have frequently been the driving forces behind modifications of sovereignty; with tribes wanting greater autonomy to pursue their economic goals free of state or federal controls. CURRENT STATUS: The modern era of tribal sovereignty originated from the landmark 1982 Supreme Court case of Seminole Tribe v. Butterworth. In this case, it was ruled that tribes have the right to create gambling enterprises on their land, even if such facilities are prohibited by the host state. This ruling not only enabled reservations to establish casinos, but also gave greater authority for tribal governments to levy taxes, own assets, create judiciaries, etc. In short, reservations began to resemble smaller versions of national governments. However, reservations are not entirely separate nations. In fact, all reservations are administered by the U.S. Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs. Both tribes and the federal government see sovereignty as aiding their economic development efforts by reducing tribal reliance of federal programs. Another complicating factor is the issue of land tenure. Most land on Indian Reservations is not owned by any one entity. Rather, it is placed in federal trusteeship, meaning that tribes or tribal members administer the land but the U.S. Department of Interior officially holds the land's title. This is a legal quagmire and is a serious hindrance to economic development because it prohibits tribes from borrowing funds while using land as collateral. Indian tribes are exempt from most federal and state taxes and regulations, theoretically offering a competitive advantage to off-reservation locations. Often, tribes advertise or promote this sovereignty as a means by which companies can escape stifling U.S. or state regulations and taxes. One of the most common buzzwords in Economic Development is SUSTAINABILITY. Although frequently overused, this term refers to the ability of something to support itself over time, which is a critical issue concerning reservation development. The biggest hindrance to economic development on reservations is that of location. Most reservations are in rural areas, often far from basic services or arterial highways. planning.unc.edu