| OCR Text |
Show # 1044 Page 34 it go in that dichotomy and that - that's the question X: ---,- pay for other purposes, for example, property tax, etc., doesn't place jurisdiction. Y: Well, that's - that's because of no, that - right, for property taxes, you can't - sure, they can't tax federally owned land cause the Federal Government's proprietor, but they have jurisdiction over the civil and criminal affairs on that land, even though, it's federally owned. If - if the Federal Government that remains the state jurisdiction and must, I think Constitutionally must. Unless it's got this excuse of this - I wish I had the Constitution before me. It's a strange provision - that they use. X: We got this problem on one of the reservations purchases land, and ah - the state's position on that reservation fishing laws on that reservation. Y: I think that that's wrong. I mean I think that the cases in court that have interpreted the provision of the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to assert jurisdiction then what that provision of the Constitution I've been talking about, say basically, that if it's inconsistent with the federal purpose, the Federal Government has the power to take the jurisdiction back, and that's the excuse they've used in the military and other things like that, and I think |
