Tenth Amendment overused
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
2 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
When asked it I was going to respond to Mr. Gale’s reaction to my guest editorial, I initially declined. I did not want to get into a tit-for-tat. Upon reflection, I reconsidered.
He criticizes the Journal and me for my 1,290-word response to his 320-word initial letter. I didn’t ask the Journal to publish my editorial for Gale’s benefit. I didn’t think he would benefit from it and, obviously, he did not. I thought that it might be important for the residents of the valley to have a better understanding of the law on Indian and non-Indian water rights. I understand that some residents have a better grasp now.
As to Indian gambling, I am proud to be a major architect of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Federal courts had already confirmed the right of tribes to engage in gambling free of state regulation before I drafted the first bill to impose federal regulation on Indian gaming. Many tribes feel the act restricted their sovereign right.
In addition, Indians and non-Indians were gambling centuries before I was born.
Finally, the “Supremacy Clause” v. the “10th Amendment.” The opponents of “big government” draw the 10th Amendment like a six-shooter every time they oppose some federal law. The Right read more into the 10th Amendment than is there. It reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” It is an important check on the Federal government. If a federal act or treaty exceeds the powers delegated to the US by the Constitution, the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional, as the court unfortunately did in Citizens United. However, if the act or treaty is within the powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, it is the supreme law of the land and it does trump state law.
Franklin Ducheneaux
Ronan
