Wednesday, April 1, 2009

House Resources Committe Webcast


This was an absolutely fascinating discussion to watch. This was very educational, and I suspect that each and every one of our dedicated Selectmen gave of their time to listen to experts (some with a definite bias) discuss the ramifications and possible solutions to Carcieri.

I must say that, of the three witnesses testifying, I appreciated Attorney Mitchell's testimony the most. He really did seem to be the only one with no dog in this race. It also seemed like many of the panel members were asking questions prepared by their clerks, and not really up to date on details--but this seemed more of a preliminary meeting than anything else.

I hope that members of this debate in Middleborough all watched.

P.S.: One of the more interesting questions raised was what happens to people convicted of federal crimes based on acts committed on Indian land where the Tribe was not a recognized Tribe in 1934? There was no federal jurisdiction on that case, so do those convicts have a basis for reversal of the conviction due to lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction? I know it has nothing to do with the casino, but it sure was a fascinating question.

5 comments:

Bellicose Bumpkin said...

Was this live or is there a link where we can see it?

Coffee Shop Talker said...

This was live...but you may be able to pick it up from their archive. You mean you did not hear it...you qualify for Selectmen status.

Bellicose Bumpkin said...

I guess the difference is that I will listen to it if there is an archive ...

Links to the audio files are here:
Opening statements
Testimony
Q&A

Anonymous said...

It is archived on the House Resources Committee Web site

Anonymous said...

Good Morning Adam,

I'm glad that someone is paying attention to what is happening in DC. Kudos to you, and thanks for mentioning it in your blog.

The Senate Committee of Indian Affairs has rescheduled their hearings on the Carcieri decision. I hope you get to see that one as well.

You had a great observation about the law in Indian country. The Carcieri decision effects more than just whether or not a tribe can get land into trust for a casino. There are ramifications from this decision that are beyond the scope of what we (in our community) understand.

Many states struggle with the issue of jurisdiction; even in states where Public Law 280 is supposed to define the roles of local law enforcement with regards to the reservation. It's much bigger than the casino issue, and has more impact on the daily lives of people that live inside and outside the boundries of a reservation.

I know you mentioned it as an aside, but since you expressed an interest, I thought I would take advantage of the door you opened and bring your attention to the importance of the issue of jurisdiction. It will be very interesting to see what transpires as a result of the RI case.

Regards,
Tracy