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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (17683)	5/22/2003 9:12:40 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21614

Both stem from a vestige of retained, though limited, sovereignity. Similar to sovereignity of states and territorial governments. States can't tax outside their borders and their ability to do so on tribal land is limited for the same reason. So they can have stores selling gas or cigs on tribal territory without state excise taxes. Just like a state can set its excise tax at any level it chooses even zero. Gambling is the same thing - tribal govts have the right to allow it or not just like Nevada, New Jersey, and most other states. So the answer is Indians have basically the same rights as everybody else. And their tribal govts have some of the same rights as states - although Congress has much more authority to override tribes than they do states - its called plenary power. A lot of similarity between tribal govts status and Monaco's status with France, I think.