While state Sen. Therese Murray is saying, "Cha-Ching" and Mayor Thomas Menino is also pushing casinos with union leaders, Indian country is still in a tizzy about the inequality Carcieri v Salazar has brought between tribes recognized or under federal jurisdiction up to 1934 and those recognized after.  Carcieri limits the Secretary of the Interior to only let land into trust be given to the former and not the latter.  The tribes are divided on a fix and as I have stated before, the states are involved as well.

 

There is however another US Supreme Court case that many are ignoring that cremates the possiblity of the federal government from taking lands to be put into trust for tribes, especially the Mashpee Wampanoags here in Massachusetts.   That case is Hawaii v Office of Hawaiian Affairs.  It is now stated precedent that the federal government has no authority to take land from one sovereign (the states) and give it to any other (in this case native Hawaiians).  This was a 9-0 decision.  It would be an exercise in futility for any case to reverse this.

 

This is how it works.  In the decision, written by Justice Alito, there are the following exerpts (emphasis mine):

Turning to the merits, we must decide whether the Apology Resolution "strips Hawaii of its sovereign authority to sell, exchange, or transfer" (Pet. for Cert. i) the lands that the United States held in "absolute fee" (30 Stat. 750) and "grant[ed] to the State of Hawaii, effective upon itsadmission into the Union" (73 Stat. 5). We conclude that the Apology Resolution has no such effect.

...we know of no justification for turning an express disclaimer of claims against one sovereign into an affirmative recognition of claims against another.

We have emphasized that "Congress cannot, after statehood, reserve or convey submerged lands that have already been bestowed upon a State."

When a state supreme court incorrectly bases a decisionon federal law, the court’s decision improperly prevents the citizens of the State from addressing the issue in question through the processes provided by the State’s constitution. Here, the State Supreme Court incorrectlyheld that Congress, by adopting the Apology Resolution, took away from the citizens of Hawaii the authority toresolve an issue that is of great importance to the people ofthe State.

This is all consistent with Article II of The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

... the first paragraph of Article IV

The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

... Article IV, Section 3 of the US Constitution.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

...and The Tenth Amentment of the US Constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The whole Hawaii case makes it impossible for Congress to take lands under the sovereignty of the States and give them to another sovereign.  Again, there are no federal lands in the 13 original States.  Don't get confused.  A post office, a federal building or a US military base in the Commonwealth are not on "federal lands".  They are federal enclaves.  Once the use of these enclaves is finished, the land is returned to full jurisdiction of the state.

There will be no land into trust for the Mashpee Wampanoag from the SOI nor from Congress.

___________________________________________________________

COMMENTS:

Gladys said:
Well done Carl!  Intelligently pesented and compelling information.

“It’s virtually a zero chance.”

It's time someone took the pompous professor of economics, Clyde Barrow, to task over his irresponsible statements, both here and in other publications. Like his namesake, he feels comfortable taking from others for his own priorities. In the 1967 classic gangster movie, "Bonnie and Clyde," Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow proudly proclaim "We rob banks." When another thief from the same era, Willie Sutton, was asked why he robbed banks he replied, "Because that's where the money is."

Apparently this is the inspiration for Professor Barrow's robbing of taxpayers.

Letter to the editor
Submitted by Chip Ford, May 11, 2002
to the New Bedford Standard-Times

Casino cheerleader, Clyde Barrow Director of Center for Policy Analysis U-Mass Dartmouth, is continuing his biased assessment of how much the residents of the Commonwealth feel they want casinos in our state.  As a reminder, this is an opinion survey report with the Barrow's spin.  Like all the "research" that comes from  Barrow is it is always slanted to favor casinos and contains no real full accounting of real unbiased reasearch.  There is never a cost analysis of the costs associated with casinos.  What does it cost for more municipal services (police, school, emergency medical, social, fire, etc.), local business loss, loss of other discretionary spending tax and social welfare increases?  These are the subjects that are shall not be researched by Barrow's center. 

There are two interesting factors that were shown from this survey.  First is the education level factor (page 7).

A majority of residents at every level of education attainment favors the authorization of two or more resort casinos with the exception of residents with a graduate degree or higher (43% yes/46% no/ 11% undecided).  Support for a casino is strongest amoung those with less than high school education (81% yes/14% no/6% undecided) (emphasis mine)

What does this mean?  Some have ventured into the area of intelegence analysis.  I would hope that Barrow, who has a PhD, isn't implying only the "stupid" favor casinos more.  I believe it is a matter of acquired knowledge and personal research.  Those with higher education levels have by their habits in acquiring knowledge have found more evidence of the negative effects of casinos, slots and gambling addiction.  Lesser educated individuals don't lack intellegence.  They just lack the knowledge od negative impacts and are constantly fed the lies of the casino industry.  They are being taken advantage of.  The real information is out there, it just needs to be shown to them.
There were a lot of empty seats for some supporters who echo some of the survey's claims.  Much of the questions on page 14 were answered in conjunction with the current information generally produced by Barrow and alike.  The surveyed residents feel the positives are all good and don't know much about the negatives or believe they exist.
The question was asked: How strongly do you agree that resort casinos in Massachusetts would increase crime in the state?  Mostly the participants disagreed it would.  But, if these same respondents read the information from here, would they have answered the same?  I don't believe they would disagree with that question or other questions in the survey, if they knew more.

The other group of those opposing casinos were respondents from the Cape and the Islands (page 2).  This is extremely logical since they are concerned that if casinos come, fewer people will come to or work seasonally on the Cape.  The only casino spot that generates real tourism is Las Vegas.  All other casino locations have little or no tourist attraction power.  Casinos draw local people as a majority of revenue, not those from far away.  Local money that would normally go to local businesses.

Don't be fooled by this survey.  It is only what residents know currently, which isn't all the facts.  The more people know, the more they say "NO" to casinos and pedatory gambling.