WuWei:
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.
Get them away from the most valuable thing that they have, their land ?!?
That don’t sound like a good idea.
WuWei
August 25, 2019, 11:13pm
45
merickson:
WuWei:
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.
Get them away from the most valuable thing that they have, their land ?!?
That don’t sound like a good idea.
What good is it doing them? You think they’re farmers?
Did you read @Safiel post. Integrate them into your society.
I think that its not my place to tell them how much they want their land or what they should want it for.
We also have seen what happens when “integration” has been adopted from above.
Change the land from a reservation to privately owned land that can be sold.
Who owns the land? The tribe.
Who makes land decisions for the tribe? The traditional elder structure, an imposed board of trustees or a new board elected by the members? (Who is a member of a tribe? The answer comes from court cases related to prior integration attempts.)
Who decides between these different groups which is the one in charge, with authority to sell? The BIA.
And oddly enough, the group that the BIA chose was always the group that wants to sell the land to Peabody Coal, or some other company.
“Integrate” has a historically meant “Take land (that was promised forever) away from people who want to keep it and give it to white run companies.”
(How about making sure that their kids go to schools where they can learn how to integrate into white society? Good idea?)
Jezcoe
August 25, 2019, 11:44pm
47
Safiel:
As per:
indian-treaties | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
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.
It’s great that Congress gave themselves to unilaterally cancel treaties.
I am sure that the Cherokee were really happy about this development.
Jezcoe
August 25, 2019, 11:50pm
48
merickson:
I think that its not my place to tell them how much they want their land or what they should want it for.
We also have seen what happens when “integration” has been adopted from above.
Change the land from a reservation to privately owned land that can be sold.
Who owns the land? The tribe.
Who makes land decisions for the tribe? The traditional elder structure, an imposed board of trustees or a new board elected by the members? (Who is a member of a tribe? The answer comes from court cases related to prior integration attempts.)
Who decides between these different groups which is the one in charge, with authority to sell? The BIA.
And oddly enough, the group that the BIA chose was always the group that wants to sell the land to Peabody Coal, or some other company.
“Integrate” has a historically meant “Take land (that was promised forever) away from people who want to keep it and give it to white run companies.”
(How about making sure that their kids go to schools where they can learn how to integrate into white society? Good idea?)
A lot of what you say has already happened.
happened over a hundred years ago.
It’s one of the reasons that the Cherokee got screwed out of their land.
The Dawes Act of 1887 (also known as the General Allotment Act or the Dawes Severalty Act of 1887) regulated land rights on tribal territories within the United States. Named after Senator Henry L. Dawes of Massachusetts, it authorized the President of the United States to subdivide Native American tribal communal landholdings into allotments for Native American heads of families and individuals. This would convert traditional systems of land tenure into a government-imposed system of priva Alt...
1 Like
It happened 50 years ago (Big Mountain for example)
Nemesis
August 26, 2019, 12:08am
50
Not more sovereign citizen ■■■■■■■■■ Please stop with it. Sovereign citizens are fruitcakes.
3 Likes
Snow96
August 26, 2019, 12:09am
51
what was the objective of them appointing someone to represent them in the house?
has it been acheived?
Nemesis
August 26, 2019, 12:11am
52
Safiel:
As per:
indian-treaties | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
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.
As always top notch research but you are forgetting one thing, the legal aspect aside if the Republicans take this to court it will be a PR disaster for them.
Much better if they negotiate their way out of this .
Petty ■■■■■■■■■
We challenged this it would be anti American crap.
Snow96
August 26, 2019, 12:20am
54
I don’t know the policically correct way of putting this but here it goes:
Some tribes do have programs like this. Where I live – right next to the high school is what has been called (since I moved here) The Indian Dorms (it has an official name but I can’t think of it at the moment.)
Every year, a federally recognized tribe loads up 100 or so students and they come and live in the dorm (BIA paying their living expenses, and travel expens) and take a full regular class schedule at my cities high school.)
I was referring to the Indian Residential Schools, where (some) kids were beaten if they used their native name rather than the names the schools handed out.
“In their our
(The applicability of that statement to federal vs. states rights issues does not escape me.)
WuWei
August 26, 2019, 12:41am
56
The Dakota Pipeline ran on Indian land? You sure about that?
I affected their land. Re water table.
WuWei
August 26, 2019, 12:50am
58
So no. And no it didn’t. Pipelines don’t affect the water table. They claimed it could to get a pay day.
DougBH
August 26, 2019, 2:49pm
59
Jezcoe:
DougBH:
WuWei:
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.
14th amendment doesn’t give some people two votes. No…
This is lthe imposition of liberal systems of private property at work. Merickson sums up the failures of it well.
WuWei
August 28, 2019, 6:02pm
61
They don’t have private property ownership.
WuWei
August 28, 2019, 6:49pm
63
merickson:
Leaking pipelines do.
The pipeline hadn’t been built yet. Do what? Affect the water table? How?
