Raptorpat

how old are they?

one of the emails about team rocket balloons was supposed to give you a promo code for the Pokemon GO shop but i couldn't log in with a ptc account

i tentatively think i have met 8 boards ppl in-person

The "Indian Territories" dissolved, not the individual tribes within it. Regardless, the decision repeatedly speaks to acts of congress in recognition of the tribe and other issues after that date. What are the consequences the State and dissent worry might follow from an adverse ruling anyway? Primarily, they argue that recognizing the continued existence of the Creek Reservation could unsettle an untold number of con- victions and frustrate the State’s ability to prosecute crimes in the future. But the MCA applies only to certain crimes committed in Indian country by Indian defendants. A neighboring statute provides that federal law applies to a broader range of crimes by or against Indians in Indian country. See 18 U. S. C. §1152. States are otherwise free to apply their criminal laws in cases of non-Indian victims and defendants, including within Indian country. See McBratney, 104 U. S., at 624. And Oklahoma tells us that somewhere between 10% and 15% of its citizens identify as Native American. Given all this, even Oklahoma admits that the vast majority of its prosecutions will be unaffected whatever we decide today.

The Creek tribe didn't dissolve, the Indian Territory/proposed State of Sequoia dissolved.

it's just the one one weed

It very specifically has to be a reservation created by congress that was swept under the rug by someone other than congress. Also correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think reservation residents are excluded from congressional representation.

Don't say onara.

Has anyone seen any maps of what this actually includes presently? I did a quick search and all the first results were old maps.

booooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooof

does mid use his teeth too

The question would then be how or whether the US broke the treaty, given it requires Congress to do it.

This is basically the summary of the result. I don't know enough about federal indian law to comment as to whether "congress must explicitly screw tribes in order to screw tribes" is an actual legal landmark. I suppose it depends on whether other reservations went through similar "unofficial" dissolutions. If not, it's just a pretty big one-off.

he's about 12 hours ahead of you

If Trump's campaign is still pushing the economy, it's really getting lost in the noise behind their loudest megaphone pushing the American Carnage™ 2.0 messaging instead.

What specifically do you mean by "broad in scope"? I haven't seen any commentary, I read the majority opinion after work to reply to this thread.

that's nice but what are the cacti named

That was the President's campaign strategy. Now it's American Carnage 2.0. The caveat though is that admittedly everything Trump is doing right now is in spite of his election advisors.

It's not just trying to troll, it's the literal campaign strategy right now.

Litigating the crime raised the legal question - was this crime committed on a reservation? If so, it is subject to federal, not state, law and the state prosecutor has no jurisdiction. According to the decision, there were a number of unique factors that distinguished this land from other reservations with over a century of dis-establishment moves. But Gorsuch, relying on textualism, basically concluded that Congress has the sole authority to make and break its promises to tribes, and because Congress never explicitly broke it's promise in this case, the land is still a sovereign Creek reservation.

yackiebirthday, happy!

that is 2 and 1/3 proxies for each fake quarter you are faking