Another example would be federal funding of public education. This comes as a supposed "blessing" from the feds, but as is always the case, the money is bound up tightly with federal regulations that end up altering the operation of the school. The process of documentation is so extreme that I knew principals who wanted to just refuse the money so as not to have to become so engaged in a mountain of barely understandable paperwork. The feds have no Constitutional authority to fund state operated educational systems.

Another area is federal ownership of land. The feds presently own 27% of our country, amounting to 615 million acres. That is 615 million acres taken out of production, or with limited production due to the usually egregious regulations. For a government that is 30 tril in debt, it's time to start selling some of that land back to private interests.

You make a good case Tomder, but context of the time and a deeper dive into the issue would help...

WICKARD v. FILBURN | FindLaw

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) – U.S. Conlawpedia (gsu.edu)

They're long reads but save some typing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Another example would be federal funding of public education. This comes as a supposed "blessing" from the feds, but as is always the case, the money is bound up tightly with federal regulations that end up altering the operation of the school. The process of documentation is so extreme that I knew principals who wanted to just refuse the money so as not to have to become so engaged in a mountain of barely understandable paperwork. The feds have no Constitutional authority to fund state operated educational systems.

Another area is federal ownership of land. The feds presently own 27% of our country, amounting to 615 million acres. That is 615 million acres taken out of production, or with limited production due to the usually egregious regulations. For a government that is 30 tril in debt, it's time to start selling some of that land back to private interests.

---

You have made the case several times that funding is not needed so why take the money and subject yourself to onerous conditions if you feel it's unconstitutional? I'm confused as to your point of school funding.

As to private lands did they take it from anybody but the natives?

Quote:

---

You have made the case several times that funding is not needed so why take the money and subject yourself to onerous conditions if you feel it's unconstitutional? I'm confused as to your point of school funding.

---

It was not my choice. As a principal, you frequently do what you are told.

Quote:

---

As to private lands did they take it from anybody but the natives?

---

That's kind of not the point.

Quote:

---

As to private lands did they take it from anybody but the natives?

---

No each piece of land was either won in wars ;purchased ,or obtained by treaty with France, Spain, Mexico ,England .

But yes that is another example of Federal overreach . It is the Federal Government that has largely kept many tribes in poverty .

All development projects on Indian land must be reviewed and authorized by the government, a process that is notoriously slow and burdensome.

Federal inheritance laws; some dating back to the last century required many Indian lands to be passed in equal shares to multiple heirs. After several generations, these lands have become so fractionated that there are often hundreds of owners per parcel of land . Managing these ownership issues is nearly impossible, so much of the land remains idle.

Federal policies regarding coal destroys one of the biggest economic opportunities in Indian territory . Regulations make it hard for the tribe to capitalize on their natural resources. Why shouldn't the nations be in the coal export business to places like Asia that import coal ?

Royalties of many assets on Indian lands are controlled and managed by Bureau of Indian Affairs . That includes lease negotiations .Frankly ;the government sucks at it .
Unlocking the Wealth of Indian Nations: Overcoming Obstacles to Tribal Energy Development (perc.org)

Even this settlement severely undervalued the assets
Obama Admin Strikes $3.4B Deal in Indian Trust Lawsuit - NYTimes.com

We are talking assets in the $ trillions ;not low $ billions . As long as tribes are denied the right to control their own resources, they will remain locked in poverty and dependence.

In my five years working for an indian school system, I observed the largely negative effects of a safety net gone extreme. In their efforts to make sure no one failed, they robbed most of the people of any desire to succeed. For most of the young people, the world was no larger than the borders of the reservation. There was no need to plan for success in life since food, clothing, housing, and med care were all guaranteed. It was as though the government told them, "Don't worry about life. We are going to take care of you." Marriage had become obsolete. The kids spent their time drinking, having sex and babies out of wedlock, watching television, playing sports, or sniffing paint. Our graduation rate was very poor. This was primarily because the government, by making failure unlikely, had made success simply another choice among many.

Hey, that's the same thing you said about black people. I think I'll go with Tom's more nuanced examples of tribes cutting through the regulatory red tape and thriving while raising the level of expertise in areas that benefit them most. The HEARTH ACT as an example.

Hmm you didn't mention that the Choctaw were moving in a good direction.

Federal Register :: HEARTH Act Approval of Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Regulations

Given the history better late than never? Not like they haven't been kicked in the butt subjugated and oppressed by the white man. Yeah I'm going there.

lol the Hearth act of 2012 . Nice try but it bypasses my central point.
Yes it streamlines some regulatory burden .But not ones that would make a real difference. The act authorizes tribes to execute agricultural and business leases of tribal trust lands for residential, public, religious, educational, recreational or more importantly, alternative and renewable energy purposes without the approval of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior.
So nothing about the mineral resources I mentioned is addressed . In fact it imposes even greater obstacles to effective energy development in Indian Country. You could expect no less from the emperor who promised to bankrupt certain energy industries . Tribal lands are estimated to have 10% of the nation’s traditional energy resources. But they are shut out from exploiting them.

There is a whole other discussion about sovereignty and being compelled to adopt Federal regulatory restraint .

Quote:

---

Hmm you didn't mention that the Choctaw were moving in a good direction.

---

My time was back in the early 90's. Things have, perhaps, changed some. The casinos have brought in a bunch of money for sure. But if I'm going to look for info on the Choctaws, I sure won't go to you. You don't know squat about them. I spent five years with them, and you spent five minutes looking up a link. Yeah.

The stumbling block of mineral rights on tribal lands are in the deed holders who can and will nix any agreement for whatever reasons. For example 10 owners of a particular land can be stopped by one from profiting by a lease agreement which from my own experience may not amount to a bonanza by any means. It's as subject to market influences and condition as any capitalist venture.

Conversely those 10 owners could exploit their own resources for their own self interest without big energy as the middle man with the right expertise for a greater long term profit. Many tribes have gone this route and expanded their horizons with options that serve their own needs.

Choctaws want to do fracking . I suspect that would be more valuable to them than casinos and selling tax free tobacco products .


McGirt v. Oklahoma decision Justice Gorsuch wrote ... “On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise. Forced to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the Creek Nation received assurances that their new lands in the West would be secure forever. In exchange for ceding ‘all their land, East of the Mississippi river,’ the U.S. government agreed by treaty that ‘[t]he Creek country west of the Mississippi shall be solemnly guarantied to the Creek Indians.’”

The Indian tribes in Oklahoma want to do fracking .So what prevents them from doing so ? The state of Oklahoma through the governor was granted special regulatory authority over the tribal lands before the ink dried on Gorsuch's decision .EPA grants Stitt request for state oversight on tribal lands (apnews.com)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Choctaws want to do fracking . I suspect that would be more valuable to them than casinos and selling tax free tobacco products .

---

Totally can agree.

Quote:

---

McGirt v. Oklahoma decision Justice Gorsuch wrote ... “On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise. Forced to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the Creek Nation received assurances that their new lands in the West would be secure forever. In exchange for ceding ‘all their land, East of the Mississippi river,’ the U.S. government agreed by treaty that ‘[t]he Creek country west of the Mississippi shall be solemnly guarantied to the Creek Indians.’”

The Indian tribes in Oklahoma want to do fracking .So what prevents them from doing so ? The state of Oklahoma through the governor was granted special regulatory authority over the tribal lands before the ink dried on Gorsuch's decision .EPA grants Stitt request for state oversight on tribal lands (apnews.com)

---

Ain't that illegal state power grabbing?

Quote:

---

Ain't that illegal state power grabbing?

---

Partly . Could not happen if the EPA did not green light it .

Correct and my guess is they will wait for a new EPA chief. (No pun intended).

You think a Quid EPA will approve fracking on native lands ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

You think a Quid EPA will approve fracking on native lands ?

---

Who will benefit?

The Indian tribes obviously . Right now they are permitted to make money on casinos ,tax free tobacco ,solar and wind and selling trinkets to tourist gawkers . Follow the discussion . It is about the unconstitutional overreaching power of the Federal government and this is a clear example of it ,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Follow the discussion .

---

Was just musing on how the government and big corporations will yet again cheat the Native Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

You think a Quid EPA will approve fracking on native lands ?

---

The chances are pretty good it's Federal lands that have a slim chance of bring fracked on or leased for drilling for that matter.

it is not Federal lands . The government just treats it as such . The fact is that 573 sovereign Native American nations have formal nation to nation relationships with the US government .Sovereignty means self governance . The tribes ceded millions of acres of land for the guarantee of self governance on the lands they reside .And it is independent rule that is at the heart of almost every issue concerning native Americans . Yes Quid and JFKerry will most likely adopted the emperor's ban on energy exploration on Federal lands . But it has been established many times the the legal status of the tribal lands is autonomous rule .