law
and that the Indian Civil Rights Act is among those.
My concern was that if we put in the contract, "By the way, you must comply with ICRA," I might was well go ahead and list the whole U.S. Code. And maybe I should in that case. [89]
....
MR. HOWARD: The crux of the problem, as I see it, is that there are some tribal officials who maintain that the Indian Civil Rights Act is not applicable Federal law, and we've heard testimony tho that effect .... [90]
My concern was that if we put in the contract, "By the way, you must comply with ICRA," I might was well go ahead and list the whole U.S. Code. And maybe I should in that case. [89]
....
MR. HOWARD: The crux of the problem, as I see it, is that there are some tribal officials who maintain that the Indian Civil Rights Act is not applicable Federal law, and we've heard testimony tho that effect .... [90]
Later in the hearing, U.S. Attorney Jerome G. Arnold expressed disagreement with Secretary Swimmer's analysis:
Assuming
he's accurate, legalese has never bothered anybody in adding something
additional. It's kind of like when we charge someone, "he
knowingly, willfully, and wantonly." Assuming he is correct,
there was nothing wrong with adding the language we asked for. I
suspect that that is just reasoning not to add the language as opposed
to the fact that it is sufficient. We don't feel it's
sufficient. Frankly, neither did the Department of the Interior
Solicitor's Office.
__________[89] Washington, D.C. Hearing, supra note 4, at 28.
[90] Id. at 29.
