Good cause imho opinion

[LOW1]

[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=4][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=4][LEFT]Jet Man and all others, I am glad that we can have a civil discussion about this. The following is the conclusion of the Eighth Circuit's decision (later upheld by the Supreme Court) which I thought eloquently describes the situation, accurately predicts future disagreements, and which also expresses conidence in finding mutually acceptable solutions:

"Despite the 160 years that have passed since the signing of the Treaty, it remains
good law. One of the hallmarks of our constitutional system is respect for the law,
regardless of changing circumstances or the inevitable passage of time. This court is
fully cognizant of the significant rights and interests maintained by all of the parties in
this litigation. The parties have attempted in good faith by negotiation to resolve their
differences. Failing to do so, the courts have the responsibility to decide the issues
under prevailing rules of law. We are aware of the professed hardships and
compromises all litigants on both sides of this litigation must endure. Yet we are
confident that all parties recognize that we are a court of limited jurisdiction, and do not
possess the power to rewrite the treaties or interpret them contrary to principles of
settled law to accommodate one group over the other.[/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][LEFT] [/LEFT]
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=4][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=4][LEFT]We commend particularly the State of Minnesota and the various Bands for their
willingness to reach agreement regarding the valuable resources in the Conservation
Code and Management Plan. We can only express hope that such spirit of cooperation
will continue to prevail and that all parties will recognize the mutual rights of one
another as now declared in this opinion."[/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

[jet man]

[QUOTE=LOW1;1413434][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=4][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=4][LEFT]Jet Man and all others, I am glad that we can have a civil discussion about this. The following is the conclusion of the Eighth Circuit's decision (later upheld by the Supreme Court) which I thought eloquently describes the situation, accurately predicts future disagreements, and which also expresses conidence in finding mutually acceptable solutions:

"Despite the 160 years that have passed since the signing of the Treaty, it remains
good law. One of the hallmarks of our constitutional system is respect for the law,
regardless of changing circumstances or the inevitable passage of time. This court is
fully cognizant of the significant rights and interests maintained by all of the parties in
this litigation. The parties have attempted in good faith by negotiation to resolve their
differences. Failing to do so, the courts have the responsibility to decide the issues
under prevailing rules of law. We are aware of the professed hardships and
compromises all litigants on both sides of this litigation must endure. Yet we are
confident that all parties recognize that we are a court of limited jurisdiction, and do not
possess the power to rewrite the treaties or interpret them contrary to principles of
settled law to accommodate one group over the other.[/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][LEFT] [/LEFT]
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=4][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=4][LEFT]We commend particularly the State of Minnesota and the various Bands for their
willingness to reach agreement regarding the valuable resources in the Conservation
Code and Management Plan. We can only express hope that such spirit of cooperation
will continue to prevail and that all parties will recognize the mutual rights of one
another as now declared in this opinion."[/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

This does not however eliminate any potential legal recourse

[QUOTE=jet man;1413437]This does not however eliminate any potential legal recourse[/QUOTE]

Not at all, the 2nd amendment was held up by a 5-4 vote as well last time around. However you might have a hard time getting the court to hear the same case again if they have previous ruled.

[LOW1]

[quote=jet man;1413437]This does not however eliminate any potential legal recourse[/quote]

I think that you are right- Mr Fellegy can make whatever legal arguments he wants to make. My view is that further litigation will just aggravate the situation, but Mr Fellegy and his supporters are certainly free to pusue things as they see best.

If Mr Fellegy proceeds it will be interesting to see what the feds and the Native Americans do. Fellegy may find himself litigating against the Chippewa and the feds as well as the state. Lawsuits make for strange bedfellows.

[jet man]

[QUOTE=LOW1;1413445]I think that you are right- Mr Fellegy can make whatever legal argumentshe wants to make. My view is that further litigation will just aggravate the situation, but Mr Fellegy and his supporters are certainly free to pusue things as they see best.

If Mr Fellegy proceeds it will be interesting to see what the feds and the Native Americans do. Fellegy may find himself litigating against the Chippewa and the feds as well as the state. Lawsuits make for strange bedfellows.[/QUOTE]

Litigate and/or negotiate; there will be aggravation either way. This is an emotional issue no matter what your viewpoint is so it kinda comes with the territory. Heck, look at the gaming issue which I discussed earlier. Minnesota would be totally in its legal right to put in Racino's and/or casino and the tribes are immediately aggravated and up in arms when the subject comes up and spend a boat load of dollars lobbying; kinda comes with the territory I would say!

This Fellegy guy is the same guy that caims to be a guide, but poaches walleye to make his point, right?

[Juls]

[QUOTE=ohnoyadont;1413471]This Fellegy guy is the same guy that caims to be a guide, but poaches walleye to make his point, right?[/QUOTE]

He doesn't "claim" to be a guide, he IS a guide. And, yes, he purposely caught a walleye out of season to make a point. A point he knew he could take to the Supreme Court to try and get the law changed. Will he? Who knows? We will see.

Please be civil or don't post at all.

Juls