Originally Posted By: JustBecause
I arrive there by deduction. See this US DOJ page for their summary.
https://www.justice.gov/enrd/us-v-washington

I would think that if alternate sources of income were part of the equation, it would say so, wouldn't it? Something like:

"Up to 50%, but no more than is necessary to provide Indians with a livelihood--that is to say a moderate living, inclusive of all other sources of potential contribution to their said livelihood"...

Again, I'm no lawyer, so take it as my opinion.


And neither am I but keeping in mind that the treaty rights are held by the individual tribes the "moderate living, inclusive of all other sources of potential contributions to their said livelihood"...clearly means to this layman that income derived from regular employment of members as well as proceeds from tribal commercial operations (AKA casinos, race tracks and other entertainment venues) count.

I also believe that this issue can be addressed to the Federal District Court should the State have the backbone to pursue it.

Rather than rely upon the DOJ's version of reality here is a link to the actual decision:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/19791101443us65811080
_________________________
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)