Author Topic: Native Americans and tribal living around the world  (Read 35291 times)



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11174
    • View Profile
bog people DNA from Florida
« Reply #52 on: December 09, 2019, 08:09:55 AM »
suggest Europeans were here very early on.

Did the "native Americans" run them off the continent?

or kill them with syphilis ?
just contemplating how to turn this back on the libs......

of course they could have been Europeans simply retiring to Florida

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52351
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52351
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52351
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: June 26, 2020, 05:41:01 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52351
    • View Profile
Native American sovereignty is no liberal triumph
« Reply #56 on: July 13, 2020, 08:49:14 AM »
Native American Sovereignty Is No Liberal Triumph
The tribes that will benefit from last week’s Supreme Court ruling are anything but progressive.
By M. Todd Henderson
July 12, 2020 2:27 pm ET

The Supreme Court has handed a big win to the sovereignty of Native American tribes. The Court’s ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma—that Congress did not disestablish Indian reservations when Oklahoma became a state in 1907—means that the eastern half of the state is now “Indian Country” and in large part under the rule of tribes like the Creek and the Cherokee. Liberals cheered. Neal Katyal, who served as solicitor general under President Obama, tweeted: “So good to see Tribes winning at SCOTUS.”

It’s strange for Democrats to cheer for sovereignty of Natives just because they have been mistreated in history and because President Trump and Oklahoma Republicans took the other side. Tribes are hardly bastions of liberal ideas in a host of areas, and they have a complicated history, to say the least.

For one thing, the tribes that will benefit from McGirt fought for the Confederacy and enslaved Africans. The Cherokee owned slaves and denied membership to the descendants of slaves—the so-called Cherokee freedmen—until forced to accept them in 2017, under the order of a federal district court.

Tribes are also backward on values sacred to Democrats. The Creek don’t recognize gay marriage. A statute passed in 2001 provides: “A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another Indian Nation or state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.” Although members of the tribe are U.S. citizens, the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not apply to them on issues of discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation and other traits. That gay Creeks are treated worse than other Oklahomans is a strange thing for Democrats to celebrate.

Zooming in on the facts of the case, other problems emerge. Jimcy McGirt was convicted by an Oklahoma court of raping a child, but the justices held that since the place where he committed the crime was Indian Country, jurisdiction was exclusively federal under the Major Crimes Act of 1885. This result should hardly warrant celebration in liberal quarters.

The Major Crimes Act shifted enforcement of most felonies on some 200 reservations to the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and away from tribal or state police. Not surprisingly, the FBI doesn’t devote the resources to violence in Indian Country that local officials would. According to FBI reports, there were 139 special agents handling Indian cases in 2017, fewer than one per reservation and about one for every 8,000 people on a reservation. This is far fewer than a large city like Chicago, which has one policeman for every 200 people.

The consequence is that the rate of unprosecuted crimes, such as aggravated assault, in Indian Country is roughly twice that of the U.S. as a whole. Rates of violence against Native women are especially troubling in Indian Country. It is likely the Justice Department will prosecute Mr. McGirt, but it is far less clear that the FBI will be as vigorous in investigating Indian-on-Indian crimes in the vast territory of eastern Oklahoma. Much domestic violence will likely go unprosecuted.

There are also legal limits to Indian tribes’ ability to enforce their own laws. The Creek have the authority to prosecute crimes in their territory, but under federal law they are constrained in the punishment they can dole out (generally no more than a few years in prison). The Creek cannot punish non-Indians under Supreme Court precedent, leaving it up to the feds.

Creek jurisdiction over Mr. McGirt, a Seminole Indian, is also constitutionally suspect. In Duro v. Reina (1990), the Supreme Court held that tribes may punish only their own members, meaning the Creek could not charge Mr. McGirt. Congress overruled this decision, passing a statute—the “Duro fix”—that gave tribes criminal jurisdiction over any “Indian.” But this statute treats Mr. McGirt differently from a non-Indian solely because of his ancestry—a dubious proposition under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Time will tell whether this case remakes Indian sovereignty. One thing we can say for sure is that Indian law and history is a vastly complex subject, and that simplistic labels like “good” and “bad” don’t work. The lesson applies more broadly. Maybe we should all resist the temptation to take sides in a partisan tweet.

Mr. Henderson is a law professor at the University of Chicago.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 52351
    • View Profile