Public Law 280 and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: Could two wrongs ever be made into a right?

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

Volumn 90, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 1317-

  Twetten, Daniel ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0345848913     PISSN: 00914169     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/1144204     Document Type: Article

References (4)

1. See HOWARD ZINN, A PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES 1-21; 124-146 (1995). Professor Zinn illustrates the brutal treatment of Indians both during colonial times and during the first century of the United States' existence.
2. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. This is the "Indian Commerce Clause," which serves two functions-it provides Congress with power to regulate Indian affairs and it recognizes tribes as political entities distinct from state and federal governments.
3. Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 561 (1832).
4. th century, but was reborn in the 1930s when "the tribes regained their statutory authority as trustees of the federal government who were free from the powers of state and local governmental entities." Id. at 353. The second aspect of the trust responsibility is that it is the burden of the federal government to care for the tribes and the tribes' resources; that is, the tribes are like children to be protected by the United States. See Worcester, 31 U.S. 515. This "trust