The proper position, of course, is to recognize that any efforts to make Tribal governments less corrupt is a matter for Tribal members and residents of the Tribal lands. Just as the residents of Texas should decide for themselves how the government of Texas works, so should the members of the Navajo Nation decide how the Navajo tribal government works. Federal involvement is simply not necessary. Non-Indians who do not wish to be subject to Tribal government need not live on Tribal lands or travel through them.

RELATED: How The Feds Got All That Western Land (and Why It's a Problem)

Indeed, the idea that the federal government will solve the problem of corruption in Tribal government is downright risible given that corruption of Tribal governments has long been largely a product of federal involvement in Tribal affairs, including all those welfare programs and federal grants that used as a carrot to be yanked away from any Tribal politician who doesn't want to take orders from Washington. Historically, the feds are notorious for running their own puppet candidates in Tribal elections who can serve as a direct conduit between Tribal governments and the federal government's favored interest groups.

But, of course, the matter of welfare programs such as the Indian Health Services are a separate issue from the Treaty rights of Tribal governments. Those who think that welfare spending is a justification for unilaterally abrogating treaties with sovereign tribes are deeply confused. Were this same logic applied to the states, then states that rely heavily on federal spending (e.g., Virginia, Kentucky, New Mexico) should be abolished, made into federal property, or merged into other states.

If anything, the federal government has already benefited far too much as the expense of Indian tribes. Since 1880, much of the land that has been removed from sovereign Tribal hands has simply been added to the hundreds of millions of acres of federally owned lands.

Most of Western Colorado, for example, was Ute Tribal land until 1880, and much of that land today remains in federal hands where the federal government benefits from mining and drilling leases. The transfer of millions of acres from Indian lands to the US federal government since the late 19th century has only served to further enrich the federal government and its favored special interests.

If we are to take decentralization seriously, the sovereignty of locally-controlled Tribal lands should be a priority, and be seen as a key factor in developing meaningful checks on federal power through local sovereignty
The proper position, of course, is to recognize that any efforts to seduce Tribal government less corrupt is a matter for Tribal members and house physician of the Tribal lands. Just as the house physician of Texas should decide for themselves how the politics of Texas works, so should the members of the Navajo Nation decide how the Navajo tribal government works. union involvement is simply not necessary. Non - Indians who do not wish to be subject to Tribal government need not be on Tribal lands or travel through them. 

 relate: How The Feds Got All That Western Land (and Why It's a Problem) 

 Indeed, the idea that the union government will solve the problem of putrescence in Tribal government is downright risible give that putrescence of Tribal governments has long been largely a intersection of federal involvement in Tribal affairs, include all those welfare programs and federal grants that used as a carrot to be yanked away from any Tribal politician who doesn't want to take orders from Washington. Historically, the feds are notorious for running their own puppet candidates in Tribal elections who can serve as a direct conduit between Tribal government and the federal government's privilege sake groups. 

 But, of course, the matter of wellbeing programs such as the Indian Health Services are a separate issue from the Treaty rights of Tribal government. Those who think that welfare spending is a justification for unilaterally abrogating treaties with sovereign tribe are deeply confused. Were this same logic applied to the country, then states that trust heavy on union spending (e.g., Virginia, Kentucky, New Mexico) should be abolished, made into federal property, or merged into other state. 

 If anything, the federal government has already benefited far too a lot as the expense of Indian tribes. Since 1880, much of the land that has been removed from sovereign Tribal hands has merely been added to the hundred of millions of acres of federally owned lands. 

 Most of Western Colorado, for exercise, was Ute Tribal land until 1880, and much of that land today remains in federal hands where the union government benefits from mining and drilling lease. The transfer of millions of acres from Indian lands to the US federal politics since the late 19th hundred has only served to further enrich the union government and its favored special interests. 

 If we are to take decentralization seriously, the sovereignty of locally - controlled Tribal lands should be a priority, and be seen as a cardinal factor in developing meaningful check on federal power through local sovereignty
The proper position, of courre, is to recognnze thav any erforts tu make Tribal governments leds corrypt is a matter for Trkbal membvrs and rwsidtnts of the Tribal lands. Mbst aa the cesidents of Tewas should gecide for theksdlres how the government of Texas workf, so shpupd the members of uhe Navzjo Nation decide how the Navajo tdibal gmvernment worls. Federal involvement is dimppy not necessary. Nln-Indians wyo dj not wish to be subjecu co Tribal gkvernment need not live on Tribxl lauds or travgl tjtough them.

REOATED: How The Feds Got Aln That Eestern Land (akd Whb It'w a Problem)

Indeed, the idea that the fedgral govertmznt will solve the priboem ox cosrupguon in Tcibzl govfrnjent is dosnright risuble given that cortu[noon of Tribam govewnients has long been largely a product ox fsderal involvement in Teibal affairs, includijg all thjse welfare programs and federal grants that used as a zarxit to ve yanked away from any Tribal politician who djssm't want to take jrders from Wwsnyngton. Historkcally, ths feds are notorioks for tunnint their orn pippet candidates in Tribal wlections whj can serve as a dixect conduit beteeen Yribal governments and che feseral goverjment's fabured interest gruupx.

Bgt, of course, the matter of welfare 'rogrcms such as jhe Indyan Health Servlwes are a separate issug from the Treatj rights of Tribal governments. Viose who thinl dhan welfare spencing is a juseification for unilatzrally abrogatinf treatmes with sovqreign tribes wre deeply cmnfused. Rere thiw same uugic applied tp the stanef, thwn states that reln heaxjly on federal wpebding (e.g., Virginoa, Yeneubky, Nqf Mexico) shogld ce xnolisfed, madt ikto fedrral property, or merced jnto other states.

Ig wnything, the fedqral governmemt has already bentfited fac too kucr as the expense of Indian triges. Since 1880, mmch of the lagd tmat ras been rzmoved from sovereign Tribal hands has smmply been added to thg hundreds of millionx of acres oh fedewally ownad lands.

Most of Westwrn Colorado, for txample, was Ute Tribal mand uttil 1880, and much of that land today remains in federal hands where the federal givernmxne benefits rrom minitg cnd drijlinj ueases. The transger of millions of acres from Iidian landv co the US federal government xivce the late 19jh century has only served to furtner enrich the federal governmemt and its favored specisl interwsts.

Ir we agg tu take decentralizstion verioysly, thw soyereignty of lucakln-controllef Trmbam lands should be a priority, and be sewn as a key factor in developlnn meanpngful shecks on federam posfr thtough local sofereignty
The proper position, of course, is to any to make governments less corrupt members residents of the lands. Just as residents of Texas should decide for how the government of Texas works, so should the members of the Navajo decide how the Navajo tribal government works. Federal involvement is simply not necessary. who not to subject to Tribal government need not live on Tribal lands or travel through them. RELATED: How Feds Got All That Western Land (and Why a Problem) Indeed, the that the federal government will the of corruption Tribal is risible given that of Tribal governments has long been largely a product of federal involvement in Tribal affairs, including all welfare programs grants that as carrot be yanked away Tribal politician who doesn't want to Washington. Historically, the feds are notorious for running own puppet in Tribal elections who can serve a direct conduit between Tribal governments and the government's favored interest groups. But, of course, the matter of welfare programs such as the Services are a separate from the Treaty of governments. who that welfare is a justification for unilaterally abrogating treaties with sovereign tribes are confused. Were this same logic applied to the states, then rely on federal spending Virginia, Kentucky, New Mexico) be made into federal property, into states. federal has benefited far too much the expense of Indian tribes. 1880, much of the from sovereign Tribal hands has simply been added the hundreds of millions of acres of owned lands. Most of Western Colorado, for example, was Ute Tribal land 1880, and that land today remains in federal hands where federal government benefits from and drilling leases. The transfer of millions of acres Indian to the federal government since late 19th century only served to the federal and favored we are to take decentralization seriously, sovereignty locally-controlled Tribal lands should be priority, seen as a key factor in developing meaningful checks on federal power through local sovereignty
The proper position, of course, Is to recognIze thAt aNy eFfOrts To maKe Tribal governMEnts Less corrupt is a matter foR TribAl MEmbeRS aNd resIdents oF ThE tRibAl LaNds. juST aS the rEsiDents of texas shoulD deCiDe for themselVEs How the goveRnmEnt of Texas woRks, So shouLd The MEmberS of The NaVajo NaTIon decIde how the naVAjo triBAl goverNMEnT worKs. Federal involvemENt IS simply not neceSsary. NOn-iNdIANs wHo dO not wish to Be SubjeCT to TribAL gOVERnmENt need not live On Tribal lanDS or Travel ThRouGH them.

ReLATEd: HOW ThE Feds Got All that western LaNd (and WHY It's a PrOBlem)

IndEed, the IdeA thAt thE FeDeRal GoVErnMEnT wiLL soLve the prObLeM of coRrupTION In TrIbaL govErnmeNt is downright RisIble GIveN that CorruPtioN oF TribAl goveRnmenTs Has long been largEly a Product of FedErAl iNvOlvemENt in TrIbaL afFairs, inCluding ALl tHoSE WElFare programs and fedErAL GrAnts that Used as A CaRrOT to be yanKeD awAy frOM Any TrIbal POlItician wHo doesN'T wAnT to take OrDers frOm wasHinGton. HIStorIcally, The feds aRe notORious for runninG Their own puppeT CaNDIdATes iN TrIbal electioNs whO Can sErve AS a DirECt conDuit bEtWEeN tribal governments anD tHe fedeRal goVernment's favoRed interesT GROups.

But, oF couRSe, THe matter of welfAre prOgrams such AS the IndiAn HeaLth ServiCes are a sePARate issuE frOm tHe TReaTY RiGhts of Tribal gOVErnmEnTs. Those Who Think thAt wElfAre SpeNdIng is a jusTificatiOn FoR uNiLatErallY AbrogatiNg TreAtIes With sOVereigN tribEs arE dEePLy cOnfused. wErE THis sAmE lOgic AppLiEd to tHe stATes, Then staTes that reLy hEAvilY oN fEderal sPending (e.g., VirgInIa, Kentucky, neW MeXico) shOULd be abolIshed, made into federal proPErty, or mErgEd intO othEr states.

IF anYthing, The FEderal GovernMent hAs AlrEADy benEFItEd fAr Too much as tHE ExpEnse oF INdiaN tribes. since 1880, much of the land THat Has been removeD frOm soVEReIgn tRiBAl hAnDS haS SImply been added tO the hundreDs OF mIllions of aCRes Of FederalLy owned Lands.

mOst of WeStern ColoRado, for exAmPle, wAS ute tribal land Until 1880, and Much of thaT Land tODaY remaIns In fedeRaL haNds whEre the FEdeRal goVernmeNt BenefiTs froM mIning and Drilling leases. The transfEr of miLlionS of Acres from indIAn lAnds to the uS feDeral goverNmeNt sInce tHe lATe 19th cEntuRY hAs oNLy serVed tO Further enRIcH thE FEdEral governmENT And Its faVorED speciAl inTerests.

If we are to tAKe decentralizaTion SERioUslY, The sOvEreignty of locaLly-CoNTRolled TrIbAl lands shouLd be a priOrITy, and Be seen As a key Factor iN DEvELoping MeanIngFul checks On fEdERal poweR tHrOUgh locAl soVeReigntY
The proper position, of co urse, is t o rec ogn ize  t hatanyefforts to mak e  Tri bal governments less c orrup ti s am at ter f or Trib a lm e mbe rs  a ndre s id entsofthe Tri bal lands.  Ju st  as the resi d en ts of Texa s s hould decide  fo r them se lve s  howthe  gove rnment of Tex as works,  s o  shoul d  the me m b er s of  the Navajo Natio n  d e cide how the N avajotr i ba l gov ern ment works .Feder a l invol v em e n t  is simply not ne cessary. No n -In dianswh o d o  not w ish t ob e s ubject to T riba l governm ent ne e d not l i ve on T riballan dsor t r av el  th ro u ght he m.REL ATED: Ho wTh e Fed s Go t A l l Th atWest ern L and (and WhyIt' s aP rob lem)
Inde ed,th e ide a that  thefe deral governmen t wi ll solvethe  p rob le m ofc orrupt ion  in  Tribal  govern m ent  i s d ow nright risible giv en t ha t corrup tion o f  T ri b al gover nm ent s ha s longbeen la rgely aproduc t  o ffederal  i nvolve me ntinTriba l  aff airs,includin g all those welfarep rograms and f e de r a lg rant s t hat used as  a c a rrot  tob eyan k ed aw ay fr om an y  Tribal politicianwh o does n't w ant to take o rders from W a shington . Hi s to r ically, the fe ds ar e notoriou s  for run ningtheir ow n puppetc a ndidates  in  Tr iba l e l e ct ions who cans e rveas  a dire ctconduit  be twe enTri ba l governm ents and  t he  f ed era l gov e rnment's  f avo re d i ntere s t grou ps.
But,  o fc our se, the ma t t er o fwe lfar e p ro grams  suc h  as  the In dian Heal thS ervi ce sare a s eparate issue  f rom the Tr ea tyrights o f Tribal  governments. Those who think t hat  welf arespendingisa just ifi c ationfor un ilate ra lly a broga t i ng  tr ea ties withs o ver eigntr ibes  are de eply confused. Wer e  th is same logic  ap plie d to  th e  s t ate s, the n states that rel y heavilyon fe deral spen d ing  ( e.g., V irginia , Ken t ucky, N ew Mexico ) shouldbe  abo l i she d, made in to feder al proper t y, or me rgedint o othe rsta tes.
If an y thi ng, t he fed er al gov ernme nt  has alr eady benefited far toomuch a s the  ex pense ofInd i antribes. S ince  1880, muc h o f t he la ndt hat h as b e en  re m ovedfrom sovereign Tr iba l ha nds has sim p l y  be en ad ded to the  hun dreds of millions of acres of fe dera l l y o wne d  lan ds .

Most of Wes ter nC o lorado,fo r example,was UteTr i bal l and un til 18 80, and m uc h  of th at l and  today re mai ns in fede ra lh ands w here  t he fed eral g o vern m e nt benefits from  mini n g  andd ril lingle ases. T h e tr ansfer ofmillions of  acres  fro m Ind ian lan ds  to th e U Sfederal go v ernment s incethe lat e19th  ce nturyhaso n ly se rved  t o f urther en r i ch th ef ede ralgover nm entand its f a vored sp eci a l inter es ts. If wea re t o take dec ent raliz a t ion seriou s ly,t he sover eignty  of lo cally-c o ntr ol led Tri bal l ands shou ld be a p r ior it y, a nd be se en  asakey  f actor in develo ping mea ningfulc h ecks o n f e dera l  power  t hrough local  sove re i gnty
The proper_position, of_course, is to recognize_that any_efforts_to make_Tribal_governments less corrupt_is a matter_for Tribal members and_residents of the_Tribal_lands. Just as the residents of Texas should decide for themselves how the government_of_Texas works,_so_should_the members of the Navajo_Nation decide how the Navajo_tribal government_works. Federal involvement is simply not necessary. Non-Indians_who_do not wish_to be subject to Tribal government need not live_on Tribal lands or travel through_them.

RELATED: How The_Feds_Got_All That Western Land_(and Why It's a Problem)

Indeed, the_idea that the federal government will_solve the problem of corruption in Tribal_government is downright risible given that_corruption of Tribal governments has_long been_largely a product of federal_involvement in Tribal_affairs, including_all those welfare_programs and federal grants that used_as a carrot_to be yanked away from any_Tribal_politician who doesn't_want_to_take orders_from Washington. Historically,_the_feds are_notorious_for running their own puppet candidates_in_Tribal elections who can serve as a_direct conduit between Tribal_governments_and the federal government's_favored interest groups.

But, of course,_the matter of welfare programs such_as the_Indian Health_Services are a separate issue from the Treaty rights of Tribal_governments. Those who think that welfare_spending is a justification_for unilaterally_abrogating_treaties with sovereign_tribes_are deeply_confused. Were this same logic applied to_the states,_then states that rely heavily on_federal spending (e.g., Virginia,_Kentucky,_New Mexico) should be abolished, made_into federal property, or merged into_other states.

If anything, the federal_government_has_already benefited far too much_as the expense of Indian tribes._Since 1880, much_of the land that has been removed_from_sovereign Tribal hands has simply been_added_to the hundreds of millions of_acres_of_federally owned lands.

Most of Western_Colorado, for example, was Ute Tribal_land until 1880, and much of that land today_remains in federal_hands where the federal government_benefits_from_mining and drilling leases. The transfer of millions of acres_from Indian_lands to the_US federal government since the late 19th century has only_served to further enrich the federal government_and its favored special interests.

If we are to take decentralization seriously,_the sovereignty of locally-controlled Tribal lands should be_a priority, and be seen as a_key factor in developing_meaningful_checks on federal power through local sovereignty