Politics: J'accuse!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Unless I am misunderstanding the treaties, yes.

I think you are. It's US land over which a given tribe exercises sovereignty. The treaty controls precisely what authority the US has over the area--but it has at least enough to prosecute for federal crimes committed on Indian land.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think you are. It's US land over which a given tribe exercises sovereignty. The treaty controls precisely what authority the US has over the area--but it has at least enough to prosecute for federal crimes committed on Indian land.

wasn't there a long term stand off at one reservation when agents came to arrest a guy, but couldn't enter the land? Minn or ND early 90's.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
My guess would be that it just never ocurred to them. What do they do for boxers or football players?

Good point, I don't know. I would argue that professional sports players in general have more leverage with their employers than an 18 year old runaway in porn, but I could be wrong.

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Condoms in porn never bothered me. But I would be concerned if OSHA became involved. The industry would just move overseas. The recent outbreak is news because it is rare, promting me to believe the industry has done a pretty good job of policing itself. I doubt performers would get such protection in Eastern Europe.

True but perhaps a law could be enacted that would bar the importation (including downloading) of goods that were produced in foreign countries that did not abide by OSHAs worker protections. I guess that would put Nike and Wal-Mart out of business, though.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
[flotsam]

Thanks for the analogy!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think you are. It's US land over which a given tribe exercises sovereignty. The treaty controls precisely what authority the US has over the area--but it has at least enough to prosecute for federal crimes committed on Indian land.

How is it that Conneticut taxes its indian casinos 25% if it has no authority to do so? Did the CT Indian casinos just consent or something?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Not Me
How is it that Conneticut taxes its indian casinos 25% if it has no authority to do so? Did the CT Indian casinos just consent or something?

Well I guess I will just have to answer my own question, then.

http://www.uchastings.edu/plri/spr96tex/calgam.html

• The seminal case opening the door for Indian gambling was California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987). [37] In Cabazon, the Court was looking at bingo laws in California. The Court found that where the state permitted even restricted bingo (i.e. limited stakes, gaming hours, etc.), its laws were "regulatory" and not "prohibitory." The latter could be applied against tribes, the form could not. The result was that if a state permitted any type of bingo, the tribes could also offer the game, free of state interference.
  
  As a result of Cabazon, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) in 1988. [38] IGRA divides gambling into three classes: [39] Class I gaming consists of "social games played for prizes of minimum value or traditional forms of Indian gaming engaged in by individuals as part of, or in connection with, tribal ceremonies or celebrations;" Class II gaming, which includes nonbanking games in which players do not bet against the house, Bingo and card games which are not expressly prohibited by the state are permitted; Class III gaming is defined as games not included in Class I or II, including "electronic or electromagnetic facsimiles of any game of chance or slot machines of any kind."
  
  IGRA allows unencumbered Class I gaming, regulated by the tribes themselves. Tribes may conduct class II gaming if the state permits any similar game, and they regulate themselves subject to National Indian Gaming Commission oversight. The class II provisions essentially codify Cabazon. Class III gaming may only be conducted if the state permits similar games, and then only if the tribe and state enter into a compact to establish a method of regulation.

So for Class III gaming, the Indians must enter into a compact with the state.

Indian land isn't analogous to a foriegn land.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
Class III gaming may only be conducted if the state permits similar games, and then only if the tribe and state enter into a compact to establish a method of regulation.[/list]
So for Class III gaming, the Indians must enter into a compact with the state.

Indian land isn't analogous to a foriegn land.

What does this have to do about taxation? What you have stated above and the malum prohibitum/malum per se (sp?) distinction, at least in CA, has been settled law for years, but I don't think that CA has the general right to tax native americans for events which occur on tribal land. I suspect that CA's current agreement with the tribes does not permit taxation, though dollars to donuts it will when it comes up for renegotiation.

[Not Me]

Well it seems that the Class III Indian casinos are tax free in CA because idiots in CA government entered into compacts allowing them to be tax free. Seems like the CT government was smarter in requiring a 25% tax.

http://www.uchastings.edu/plri/spr96tex/indgam.html

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What does this have to do about taxation? What you have stated above and the malum prohibitum/malum per se (sp?) distinction, at least in CA, has been settled law for years, but I don't think that CA has the general right to tax native americans for events which occur on tribal land. I suspect that CA's current agreement with the tribes does not permit taxation, though dollars to donuts it will when it comes up for renegotiation.

Actually, the law is that for Class III gaming, the tribe has to enter into a compact with the state. Some states (like CT) require a tax or they won't enter into a compact. So, yes, it does mean that the tribe has to "consent" to the tax, but the alternative is that they cannot have Class III gaming on their land unless they consent.

Read the other link I provided, which explains it better. Tax is probably not the right word. One of the terms of the compact can be to require a percentage of the revenue be handed over to the state. This is an agreed upon percentage, as in CT it is 25%, so in that sense, it is not a tax. But the alternative is no Class III gaming.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
Actually, the law is that for Class III gaming, the tribe has to enter into a compact with the state. Some states (like CT) require a tax or they won't enter into a compact. So, yes, it does mean that the tribe has to "consent" to the tax, but the alternative is that they cannot have Class III gaming on their land unless they consent.

Read the other link I provided, which explains it better. Tax is probably not the right word. One of the terms of the compact can be to require a percentage of the revenue be handed over to the state. This is an agreed upon percentage, as in CT it is 25%, so in that sense, it is not a tax. But the alternative is no Class III gaming.

Right, but this is all predicated on a determination that Class III gambling is malum per se, which is a difficult argument to swallow given that Class III gambling is permitted in other states.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Right, but this is all predicated on a determination that Class III gambling is malum per se, which is a difficult argument to swallow given that Class III gambling is permitted in other states.

I don't think so. I think before the state is even obliged to enter into good faith negotiations with a tribe, Class III gaming must be permitted by the state. Then once Class III gaming is permitted by the state, the state is required to enter into good faith negotiations with the tribe to negotiate the terms of the compact, which can include a portion of the revenue being paid to the state.

So the fact that a neighboring state makes Class III gaming illegal or legal is irrelevant under the law. All that is relevant is if a particular state makes it legal or illegal. If it is legal, then the state is required to negotiate in good faith a compact with the tribe, the terms of which govern the tribe's class III gaming activities.

Bottom line - a state can get a percentage of the class III revenues earned by a tribe if the state negotiates it.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
malum prohibitum/malum per se (sp?)

I didn't realize that distinction had an effect on taxation status but it's malum in se.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I didn't realize that distinction had an effect on taxation status but it's malum in se.

Thanks dtb.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
However, most of that is due to the fact that every thinking legislator (a slim majority) realizes that if Arnold blames the Legislature for a policy failure, the electorate will believe it. So the Legislature is, um, a little accomodating of the expected result any initiative campaign. This counts as governing?

Using his influence with the voters as the fulcrum to lever the legislators onto his chosen path? "Governing"?

By its very definition.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I didn't realize that distinction had an effect on taxation status but it's malum in se.

I thought that was the basis for progressive taxation.