And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Permission to circulate: Sure, you may. I'd be happy if you noted my authorship. You may also want to refer readers to our firm web page, which describes a lot of treaty rights cases. See http://msaj.com Tom ******************************************** Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 15:49:41 -0800 From: Tom Schlosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: Morisset Schlosser Ayer & Jozwiak, 801 2nd Ave., Ste. 1115, Seattle, WA 98104, 206 386 5200, (206 386 7322 fax) To: Triballaw mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Salient points of Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Supreme Court's March 24, 1999, decision in favor of Mille Lacs treaty rights includes the following matters. (Page references are to the .pdf version available at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1337.ZS.html) 1. The President must have authority from Congress or the Constitution to take actions with respect to Indians. Slip Op. at 15. 2. The severability rules for dividing statutes into valid and invalid parts apply to executive orders. Slip Op. at 17. 3. The canons of construction requiring that treaties be interpreted liberally, and as the Indians understood them, still exist. Slip Op. at 20, 23. 4. Treaties ceding "all" interests in land do not necessarily abrogate use rights reserved by other treaties in those same lands unless the historical context of the treaties and the practical construction adopted by the parties suggests that intent. Slip Op. at 21-27. 5. Treaty rights must be expressly abrogated or they still exist. Slip Op. at 29. 6. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife v. Klamath Tribe (1985), resulted from express language in an 1864 treaty that reserved "exclusive" rights within a reservation, and does not apply to nonexclusive rights in ceded areas. Slip Op. at 27-29. 7. The contention that treaty use rights were extinguished when States were admitted to the Union is wrong. The decision in Ward v. Race Horse (1896) has been "qualified" (majority opinion) or "overruled" (dissent) by later decisions of the Supreme Court. Slip Op. at 29-32; Rehnquist dissent at 12-13. 8. The continuing effect of treaty rights does not turn on whether the words "rights" or "privileges" were used in the treaties. Slip Op. at 32. 9. If a particular treaty states that rights would continue only upon certain conditions and the happening of these conditions was "clearly contemplated" when the treaty was ratified, then those rights end when the clearly contemplated events occur. For example, the treaty in Race Horse contemplated that rights would continue only so long as the hunting grounds remained unoccupied and owned by the United States. Slip Op. at 34. 10. Although treaties use different language, reserved tribal hunting and fishing rights are subject only to reasonable and necessary nondiscriminatory state regulations adopted in the interest of conservation. Slip Op. at 31-32. Tom <<<< To remove your name from this list send a message to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" with the message "unsubscribe triballaw" >>>> &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) Unenh onhwa' Awayaton http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
