Originally Posted By: ned
Consider this:
The Treaty calls for the US government to protect the tribal reservations from physical threat and judicially. IE when the tribes sued in Boldt, they were represented by the the federal govt and the case was called "USA vs State of Washington."

If the Corps had OK'ed the ramp, and the tribe decided to file suit against the Corps, it would be USA vs Army Corps of Engineers (USA).
How does that work? Think anyone considered that when reviewing the case?

Second: It strikes me as odd that the Corps decision had to do with defining treaty rights, and if this ramp infringes on their ability to harvest within treaty specifications. (It is definitely in a gray area that takes some debate.)

Why is it in the Corps jurisdiction to define legalese? I thought only Congress could do that?
I would have thought the Corps looked at structural, environmental, and hard permitting/construction requirements, not legal interpretation of hypothetical claims...especially when there is no appeal process.


Another perspective is that if the Corps is responsible to protect Treaty rights how is it that the Corps can approve a project that would clearly have an adverse impact if the tribe(s) don't object (because they have been paid compensation to facilitate the approval)?
_________________________
Remember to immediately record your catch or you may become the catch!

It's the person who has done nothing who is sure nothing can be done. (Ewing)