Projects
American Indian Community Data Profile, 2002
Namadji Youth and Elders Project Report, 2001
Forum Reports
1997 Fall: Tribal Sovereignty and
American Indian Leadership
1996 Fall: Tribal Governments: What will they look like in the year 2010?
1996 Spring: The Threatened State of Tribal Sovereignty
State-tribal relations
The devolution of congressional authority to the states in the last two decades has impinged on the government to government relationship Indian tribes have with the federal government.
In the early '80s, Ronald Reagan's policy of New Federalism began the trickle-down of regulatory and taxation authority to the state level. Despite Democratic control of the White House, that trickle has become a torrent.
From the state government's frame of reference, it doesn't make sense that the state can't assume regulatory and taxation authority over Indian country, just like every other area.
Conflicts over resource management, taxation and regulation erupt because state governments fail to understand or recognize the sovereignty of tribes. The U.S. Supreme Court clearly defined the relationship between Indian tribes and state governments in 1832. In Worchester v. Georgia, Chief Justice Marshall wrote, "The Cherokee Nation, then, is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter, but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties, and with the acts of congress. The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation, is, by our constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States."
The framework set forth in this case (and two others that comprise the Marshall trilogy) make it clear that states are specifically excluded from relationship between two sovereign nations. These cases echo the constitution which specifically prohibits any state from entering into a treaty with another nations, and, through the commerce clause, gives congress the sole authority to deal with Indian nations. That a state government would try to exert taxation or regulatory authority over an Indian nation makes no more sense than if that same state government tried to tax Canada.
It is clear that the governments closest to Indian tribes need the most education. State government jealousy and resentment over casino revenues often cloud a clear point of view.
In small group discussion to address tribal-state relations, gaming kept surfacing. According to moderator Roy Taylor, gaming "takes us back to the ignorance displayed by all the players. This ignorance is based on racism, bigotry, power, etc. Because gaming is revenue related, it is the reason for its continued surfacing."
The missing element, according to Taylor, is governance in an appropriate manner.
It is up to us to inform the general public. Our Congress has to be educated and needs to become even more knowledgeable about Native Americans in order for us to get their help, said Lorraine Rosseau, former tribal chair from South Dakota. Rosseau encouraged the group to go back the their homelands and to do something.
There is still a "Hollywood" image of Native Americans left from the '50s and '60s This ignorance and negative view needs to be counteracted, one woman said.
Native Americans must out organize and communicate to survive and prosper. With a strategic plan, Native American can become more proactive, another participant said. She added that Native Americans must invite all, like in native tradition. We must offer gifts and talk over dinner with the hope that this will enhance the relationship.
top | Projects
| Research | Publications
| Links | About Us
| Contact Us | Home
© Copyright 2002, American Indian Policy Center. All Rights
Reserved.
1463 Hewitt Avenue • St. Paul, MN 55104 • tel: 651-644-1728
aipc@cpinternet.com
Last updated:
Tuesday November 1, 2005