Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 17, 8 L.Ed. 25 (1831)); Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 55-56, 98 S.Ct. 1670, 56 L.Ed.2d 106 (1978) (stating that Indian tribes “have power to make- their own substantive law in internal matters, and to enforce that law in their own forums”) (citations omitted); United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544, 557, 95 S.Ct. 710, 42 L.Ed.2d 706 (1975) (“Indian tribes are unique aggregations possessing attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory.”); United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 381-82, 6 S.Ct. 1109, 30 L.Ed. 228 (1886) (observing that Indian tribes are “a separate people, with the power of regulating their internal and social relations”); Worchester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 559, 8 L.Ed. 483 (1832) (<HOLDING>). For such reasons, Indian tribes benefit from
holding that federal legislation with respect to indian tribes  is not based upon impermissible racial classifications and noting that article i  8 of the constitution gives congress the power to regulate commerce  with the indian tribes holding that an indian tribes claims of possessory rights were not political questions holding that an indian tribes exercise of criminal jurisdiction over nonindians is inconsistent with the domesticdependent status of the tribes and that tribes may not assume such jurisdiction without congressional authorization holding that congress which regulated the introduction of alcoholic beverages in indian country could validly delegate to indian tribes its authority to regulate that subject matter because indian tribes themselves possessed independent authority over the subject matter holding that indian tribes are distinct independent political communities retaining their original natural rights in matters of selfgovernment