Now that…was funny. 
…atta girl. 
I find that curious as well. Can you provide a valid source please.
So you are in favor of a nation within a nation?
Perhaps that is why they have the problems they do.
1 Like
I’m not sure what you consider valid.
I start with Wikipedia (“Missing and murdered Indigenous women”) as a summary
“In the United States, unlike other demographics where perpetrators are most likely to be from the victim’s own community and ethnic group, Indigenous women are usually sexually assaulted, stalked and preyed-upon by non-Natives.”
or the DOJ report it is (indirectly) linked to. Page 19 lists this data
Percentage of victims experiencing sexual violence by an interracial perpetrator
Native women victim - 96%
Native men victim - 89%
Non-Hispanc white woman victim - 32%
Non-Hispanic white man - 27%
Percentage of victims experiencing sexual violence by an intraracial perpetrator
Native women victim - 21%
Native men victim - 29%
Non-Hispanc white woman victim - 91%
Non-Hispanic white man - 91%
About the “nation inside a nation”. I don’t know enough to craft a forever-fix.
But the GOP senate has sat on the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019 since April. They would rather give Native women un-equal justice than (I’ll let them fill in the “bad thing” that is worth the price to be paid by Native women.) And that they aren’t even working to fix the bad thing, they are just sitting. (The pending 21 Dec. race based unequal protection before the law doesn’t seem to effect them or anyone they care about.)
The way I see it is that they should immediately let them have representation in both houses. Once hey see how great republicans are, and how they have their best interests at heart, they’ll have even more votes.
/s
If they were, then they wouldn’t have a right to vote. However, if tribal members get to vote along with everyone else in Congressional districts, then the members already have their representation.
The Cherokee Nation is a sovereign.
They are also citizens of the United States.
The tribe still exists, so the treaties should stand.
No it’s not irrelevant.
Granting native american’s citizenship status so they could vote on their representatives (and a step above what the treaty called for) voting on senators to represent them fullfiled the treaty.
quasi sovereign nation.
Where they citizen, and allwed to vote on representation when the treaty was signed? If not, when they recieved the right to vote on representation, the treaty was fullfilled.
And if it says that in the treaty then I will agree with you, otherwise its just your opinion.
A close legal reading of the treaty didn’t keep them out of Oklahoma, I don’t see why it should keep them out of the House.
They already have one of their own in Senator Warren. 
1 Like
Sure they do…they have every right to have someone there after what we did to them.
You just like it because they most likely dont agree with you.
Which really is the issue here when we cut through the crap
2 Likes
This matters to you why?
You pick some weird hills to die on
1 Like
The treaty has been continually broken for over hundred years.
It was never fulfilled.
As per:
A rider contained in the Indian Appropriations Act of March 3, 1871, stated: "That hereafter no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty: Provided, further, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to invalidate or impair the obligation of any treaty heretofore lawfully made and ratified with any such Indian nation or tribe.”
HOWEVER:
Subsequently, the power of Congress to withdraw or modify tribal rights previously granted by treaty has been invariably upheld.433 Statutes modifying rights of members in tribal lands,434 granting a right of way for a railroad through lands ceded by treaty to an Indian tribe,435 or extending the application of revenue laws respecting liquor and tobacco over Indian territories, despite an earlier treaty exemption,436 have been sustained.
In short, the point to take home is that Congress may unilaterally modify Treaties ratified prior to the ban on treaty making.
Such a change may be implicitly inferred from a later statute, without an explicit declaration.
The statute granting Indians citizenship, thus granting them full voting representation in the House and Senate (as well as for President), implicitly overrides the Treaty provision. Since Indians have VOTING representation in BOTH Houses of Congress, it is ludicrous to suggest they either are entitled or need a NON VOTING delegate to Congress.
If this goes to the courts, I have zero doubt whatsoever that the courts will find that the Treaty provision has been implicitly overridden and that Indians have no entitlement to a non voting delegate.
1 Like
I am a separate sovereign.
Which Cherokee Nation?
I do. Get them off the res.
As for the stats, I don’t know how that could be. Access alone makes those numbers problematic.
1 Like
I like the Freedmen, but I’m controversial like that.
