Back when the treaty signed, Native Americans did not have the right to vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_civil_rights#V...) thus a delegate would have been the only way for Native Americans to have a voice in Congress. This is the same with the other delegates, who all represent places that do not otherwise have representation in Congress.
Now Native Americans all have the right to vote, and thus have a voice in Congress.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Reading the "How to Register to Vote" indicates otherwise. sosmt.gov/elections/vote/#how-to-register-to-vote
Specifically "You will need to provide a residence address or specific geographic location information from which your residence address may be determined. The residence address must be in the county in which you are registering."
This clearly allows someone without an "address" to register. In my experience identifying the Post Office on or near the tribe's land is plenty sufficient.
>or specific geographic location information from which your residence address may be determined.
The 'from which your residence address may be determined" reads, to me, like you still need an address. If you don't have a residence address, how can you provide information that determines where it is? It's nonexistent.
The supreme court upheld the requirement that IDs have a street address, but some (maybe most or all, not sure) of the tribal authorities were able to assign street names and reissue IDs in time.
To be fair, the cited displacement of 8 ft (average for non-earthquake situations is 0 to 10cm) is within the typical margin of error of a GPS. That is, the coordinate change is small enough not to matter for “election” purposes.
IIRC, this "need to have an address" is something that had adversely affected some nomadic people Inuits of Nunavut, Canada. I guess that many of them were, more or less, forced to adopt permanent residences and it destroyed their nomadic way of life. It's something that had never occurred to me until a read an article on it. I'm sure the problem is more pervasive that I know.
Not native American, but grew up in a rural area (in Canada). My parents only got a "street address" a couple of years ago. There is a land location system going back over a century, but basically no one who didn't live on a farm new how to interpret it (say 98% of the population), and so it was basically useless as an address. The new "street address" is actually based on the land location, but it is formatted like a street address (house number, road name) rather than specifying quarter, section, township, range, meridian. Throughout my childhood, we usually just used a postal address, but in the last couple of decades, bank officials and the like have gotten more and more insistent on a physical address which we were basically unable to provide.
Native American land laws are a disaster, and it’s not their fault. It’s a large contributor to poverty as well. I’m still not sure if that was an unintended or intended consequence of US govt treaties.
Where I grew up in Montana, we didn't have a street address. Only about 20 years ago did they name the road (after my grandfather) and assign addresses.
The Civil War happened subsequently, in which many Cherokee fought for the Confederacy. 25 U.S.C. Sec. 72 allows the President to declare treaties abrogated by tribes engaging in "actual hostility to the United States", which alliance with the Confederacy certainly was.
So the issue is more complicated than you state.
* addendum since this is likely flame bait. The Cherokee, having been betrayed by Andrew Jackson and by the United States in general, had plenty of reason to support the confederacy. Have a look at Wikipedia for a historical overview:
A lot of people fought for the confederacy, but their descendants still have representation in congress because peace was made and status restored. Also I don't think you can make a case that the Cherokee Nation was at war with the United States during that time, just because some of its citizens joined irregular militias.
I believe the sentiment is that Cherokees and other native american nations aren't sufficiently represented by their elected officials. in much the same way they have been marginalized for centuries.
The city of Yakima was found [1] to have violated the Voting Rights Act a few years back because they have a significant Latino minority and yet somehow no Latinos would ever be elected to city council. This is because every voter votes on every city council seat, and because the town's majority of white voters apparently has a preference for white candidates.
I don't remember what the solution was, I think they either split the town into districts, each with its own city council member, or used some kind of proportional representation system.
No, but do you think that is an accurate representation of US politics? From the outside it seems that "one dollar one vote" applies equally well (and is equally wrong).
They're probably referring to the fact that the Cherokee members are already represented by their US legislators in the same way that other US residents are. Providing them this vote would give them more representation, and they're asking if you believe that's a better solution.
Would it? I think it's possible that other laws may mean that they have one vote, and thus have to choose whether to have their vote apply in the congressional district they are physically in, or to the Cherokee representative seat they are alotted for a non-geographical district. That would retain one vote for one person. This isn't even all that weird, I assume. Do people with residences in multiple districts get to vote in each, or do they have to choose?
Relevantly - if their Cherokee delegate is a non-voting delegate, then while they may have two representatives on the floor of the house speaking for their interests, they only have one who can be involved in the formal exercise of said House's power.
If "many Cherokee" can be classified as a "Cherokee alliance", Pemberton and Cooper, actual Confederate generals, should as well, applying these laws in context of the 14th ammendment. So no more representatives from PA or NJ?
Cherokees and Confederates? That's the oddest collab I could ever imagine. What was their official stance on the institution of slavery? That seriously is one of the strangest bits of US history I've ever learned.
They theoretically have a right to vote. Stop making laws that disenfranchise them, then you can consider changing the deal. But we made a deal. Plus the us has never stood up to it's side of deals with native americans.
Here is a photo of the Cherokee Nation capital building, preserved at New Echota, Georgia. https://joshuacurry.com/american-way/cherokee-capitol-new-ec... This was once the epicenter of the Cherokee government which organized to trade with the colonies. It was taken by a group of 20 non-natives who signed the treaty of New Echota without native consent and enforced by Andrew Jackson. This particular action began the "Trail of Tears". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_New_Echota
Perhaps we should just grant statehood to the various Indian nations so they may be formally admitted into this republic. I am not a fan of giving representation to alien nations. I'm not sure our courts have legal jurisdiction over such agreements so long as they are extra-national, so there may be no way to enforce it.
The modern state of Oklahoma was effectively the dumping ground for all of the Indian nations that were forcibly relocated, predominantly the "Five Civilized Tribes" of the Southeast who were forced out by Andrew Jackson. From 1889 to 1895, the unassigned territories, and later "unused" lands previously allotted to the relocated Indians, were given out to settlers in a series of land runs, and the involved lands were collected into an Oklahoma Territory.
In response to these pressures, the Indian Territory then attempted to turn their territory into a full state (Sequoyah), but this was turned down by Congress, which wanted the Oklahoma and Indian Territories merged into a single state instead. I believe this was motivated by political concerns, but this isn't an area of history I know very well.
It should also be noted that many of the actions the US government took during this time with respect to the Native Americans were flagrantly in violation of laws and treaties that existed, too. Any treaty the US government made with the natives were not worth the paper they were written on.
Are you referring to the Cherokee Nation as alien, meaning that the US is the native nation? How warped a world view one must have to say something like that with no sense of irony.
Are you claiming that the Cherokee nation is subject to the US government? That's arguing in favor of a form of colonialism. It is your worldview that is warped. The Cherokee (and any other native nation wanting their land back) are best served by granting them status as fully sovereign individual nations, as alien to the United States as the United Kingdom and Canada. Can you imagine if we tried to impose our law on Canada? Why then should we allow other nations which ought to enjoy sovereignty to remain subject to the United States?
If, after being recognized as a separate nation by the United States, they would like to seek entrance to the Union as a separate state, then they can petition Congress for that right, as any other sovereign nation is allowed to do.
We do impose our laws on the tribes, right? I mean, they have their own criminal courts and everything, but they are limited in their ability to mete out punishment. As far as I understand, they cannot form treaties with other nations. They can't raise armies. States can compel establishments within native american tribal territories to collect sales taxes on non-native people.
I don't think it's technically correct to say that they are subjects of the US government. The US doesn't really have subjects at all, right? We have citizens, and Native Americans are citizens of the United States. But it is likewise incorrect to say they are sovereign, at least as we typically think of national sovereignty.
> I mean, they have their own criminal courts and everything, but they are limited in their ability to mete out punishment. As far as I understand, they cannot form treaties with other nations. They can't raise armies. States can compel establishments within native american tribal territories to collect sales taxes on non-native people.
Yes, that is why I made the point that I think they would be best served by granting them fully sovereign status. You can't be granted sovereign status if you're already sovereign. The USA maintains its authority over the cherokee in the same way it maintains authority over certain aspects of the states.
> The US doesn't really have subjects at all, right? We have citizens
Citizens of the US are subject to the laws of the United States. To be subject to a law means that you must follow it under penalty of legal proceedings.
> But it is likewise incorrect to say they are sovereign, at least as we typically think of national sovereignty.
This is an overly simplistic view of sovereignty. Per the Constitution, the individual 50 states are fully sovereign. They have given up some sovereignty to the federal government, in certain matters, such as international relations. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that, according to US federal law, they are to be treated as sovereign entities. This shared sovereignty is the basis of American federalism. The tribes operate under a similar arrangement. The Constitution allows the federal government to enter into treaties with the Indians as if they are foreign governments. The current US policy is to grant them 'tribal sovereignty' which is a half sovereignty enjoyed by the states. However, unlike the states, where they chose deliberately to give up their sovereignty to become part of the United States, the tribes were forced to sign treaties, forcibly uprooted, forcibly slaughtered, etc.
> Per the Constitution, the individual 50 states are fully sovereign.
As far as I can find, the constitution does not use the word "sovereign." Can you point me to which clause you're referring to? It's also worth noting that whatever the constitution says, the states are de facto less independent than many envisioned at the turn of the 19th century.
I think alien and native are orthogonal terms. If we landed on an inhabited planet we would call those inhabitants aliens, not to imply that their planet is our native land, but to state that they are different than us. In the same way, the parent comment refers to a nation different from the US as an alien nation.
I don't think "alien" is the most common way to refer to foreign nations, but it's not wrong or rude to my knowledge. Your comment seems uncharitable and insulting though.
I believe OP is referring to how Indian nations are governed and the laws that apply to them. They're outside the scope of US law (so they're alien). The word choice is ironic historically but it's not incorrect and it further isn't as though OP was implying natives are not legitimately native.
Governments set laws based upon land areas. This is why we have things like county lines, state lines, city lines, etc.
But these local governments have no jurisdiction over federal land. This is why you can have a federal building in the middle of a city, and that city's laws do not apply to the building, or the land around the building (that's held by the US government).
Native land is technically federal land that's held on behalf of the tribes. And THIS is why local laws don't apply to native land.
It's a common misconception that native american tribes are sovereign. They're considered 'domestic dependent nations', but not sovereign. This is why, for example, the US can limit their ability to issue drivers licenses and travel VISA's.
But they are outside the scope in very important ways this glosses over and which does make them much more sovereign than a state, such as sin taxes (cigarettes) and gun law enforcement (a PMC was incorporated in and trading fully automatic weapons through Indian territory). The basis for those is what is important.
I'm not totally sold on this interpretation, I've interacted with enough territorial land that I got the impression it is completely left to the tribes. It may technically be "under federal jurisdiction" but if a treaty ceded any or most right to law enforcement then it's independent.
They have said it better as "giving representation to other nations". It is less usual to grant other nations representation in the house and senate, but the Native American tribes are not exactly independent nations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21275381
Not sure how that would work. Nevertheless, I would be really surprised if recognized Tribes would voluntarily give up their sovereignty to become a state.
I haven't been to the Cherokee reservation, but have been to a couple of reservations for smaller tribes.
They were universally sad/depressing places. Usually they have one central liquor store/"market" with drunk people hanging out in front. Dirty and dilapidated buildings...lots of natives suffering from diabetes and obesity.
What this country did and continues to do to the natives contrasts sharply with how we preach "human rights" and such to the rest of the world.
What is it that we are doing now (other than inflammatory sport team names)? I'm pretty naive on this topic, so I don't mean this as an attack, but as a legitimate question.
I feel like someone else can do a better job with a comprehensive list, but I can give an anecdote from my experience.
A few years ago I sat in on a tribal economic development forum in one of the western states. Not a tribal member, just an invited guest.
One of the issues one of the tribes had was: they don't have water rights to the water that supplies one of their towns. The water comes from their land, but they're required by a 1920s-era local ordinance to sell it to a neighboring town, that then sells it back to them. They want that local ordinance removed, so they aren't paying the neighboring town for, literally, their own water.
The neighboring town isn't filtering it, isn't processing it, it's just enjoying the largesse of some local politician nearly a hundred years ago, writing a law that rips off the tribe.
They just want the ordinance removed. They just want to have their water at extraction cost.
This was one 15-minute section in a day-long conference. This was the "rapid fire" petitions to representatives from state government.
Next section: In a city somewhere else in the state, someone's building a police station. The contract is out for public bid, but the contracting language said "Bidders must reside in our county, with zip codes xxxx, yyyy, zzzz excluded from bidding." The excluded zip codes corresponded exactly to where the reservation land lay.
The tribe was there, asking for the contracting language to be changed, so that they could merely submit a bid for one of their construction companies -- not that they wanted any special treatment, but they literally just wanted to be treated like any other zip code in the county.
That was another 15 minute section in the rapid-fire requests.
Wow... thanks for sharing your story. I always thought it was mainly the feds being completely inept when it came to Indian Affairs but I guess it's not surprising the local governments are the same way.
The federal government continues to horribly mismanage reservation lands and the resources located on them.
"Tribes historically had little or no control over their energy resources. Royalties were set by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but the agency consistently undervalued Indian resources. A federal commission concluded in 1977 that leases negotiated on behalf of Indians were 'among the poorest agreements ever made.'
Unfortunately, it hasn’t gotten much better. A recent class action suit alleged that the government mismanaged billions of dollars in Indian assets. The case settled in 2009 for $3.4 billion—far less than what was lost by the feds."
Delegates do, however, have floor privileges, the right to sit on committees and vote with them, and the right to vote on legislation. Under the current House rules for the 116th Congress, delegates can also vote with the Committee of the Whole,[0] though if theirs is the deciding vote on a measure, a new vote takes place without them. For the past few decades, that privilege--such as it is--gets restored or removed depending on which party controls the House. In spite of their non-voting status, delegates do have at least some power and influence in the House that can be leveraged on behalf of their constituents.
This is fascinating. Good for them in researching their historical rights. I hope they succeed - it will only help Congress to have their views represented.
You beat me to it! Carpenter is a very interesting case that I was following last term.
If you're unfamiliar, the case is about the disputed abolishment of certain reservations in Oklahoma. If the court rules that the reservations were never actually abolished, among other things, a large portion of Oklahoma would actually be on reservation lands.
Definitely agree. Roberts court aside, I remember during oral argument some justices being very uncomfortable with the ramifications of a strong ruling on either side.
Delegates can't take part in the final floor vote on bills, but they can be part of committee votes before that, including (depending on the rules for that particular Congressional session) 'Committee of the Whole' votes when the entire House votes on non-final-bill matters.
> since it would cover geographical territory that’s already part of two congressional districts
Correct me if I'm wrong but these districts can be created, destroyed or redrawn practically at a whim, no? I recall some ramblings that Democrats might remove the district in which AOC runs because they don't like her.
Don't know much about this issue just thinking it's a rather weak excuse.
The "Cherokee Nation" which abrogated any claim to being an actual separate national entity within the USA when they agreed to national recognition and citizenship within the boundaries of Oklahoma, already have two delegates in two different districts, the first and second Congressional districts of Oklahoma.
I'm no bleeding heart SJW, but holy hell do the native people deserve some type of representation in our govt. The atrocities committed against them were unconscionable.
(1) Treat the natives like any other citizen, so no special land reservations etc, or
(2) Grant them completely separate sovereign nation status and end this ridiculous quasi-sovereign state of affairs we find ourselves in. No person deserves special rights or recognition because their grandfather (or grandmother) was of a certain race. That is antithetical to a free society. The easy solution here is to cede all land back to them, and establish proper international relations.
Understandably, natives want their own land. That's great, but they can't get that if there's another government in their way. Understandably, states want full sovereignty over their own land, but they can't get that if there exist quasi-nations in the way. The obvious solution is to allow them actual self governance.
That viewpoint is needlessly absolutist. There's obviously no way that native nations could even afford to negotiate with the US Federal Government. That was true 184 years ago, and it's still true now. At the same time these people do deserve special treatment, being the subjects of systemic oppression that continues to this very day. If we really believe that native Americans are valuable as native Americans (and I think that they are) then we need to provide governance structure that can work for them.
It's yet more evidence, as if more was needed, that the idea of a "melting pot" is fundamentally the wrong way to think about multiculturalism.
> If we really believe that native Americans are valuable as native Americans (and I think that they are) then we need to provide governance structure that can work for them.
An individual who is a native american is valuable because they are a human. Their race does not factor into their worth, thank goodness. We need to provide governance capable of working for the 300(400?) million people that call the United States home. None of those people should get outsized consideration, and especially none for their race.
No nation can actually afford to negotiate with the US federal government as equals. Perhaps China and Russia are two exceptions. My proposed nations would nevertheless enjoy the same sovereignty that many other nations enjoy. If they would like US help, they can ask for protectorate status (like the Mariana islands), and the US should comply, because we should be friends with our neighboring countries, especially what would functionally be ex-colonies. The US needs to wash its hands of this kind of colonialism now, or it will fester and get much much worse.
The point of reconciliation/reparations is acknowledging that have been long-standing systemic oppression of these groups— it isn't a matter of just bucking up and working hard when you're subject to multi-generational trauma. I don't know as much about the US situation, but in Canada there was a long period of intentional attempted cultural genocide, where indigenous kids were literally ripped from their parents' arms and sent to far off boarding schools and taught to behave white. That would be bad enough if it wasn't also an environment with almost no oversight that led to rampant other abuses, including sexual.
And this wasn't really all that long ago— the last of these residential schools didn't close until 1996.
If you're interested in more about this, APTN did a terrific series called First Contact, which featured everyday Canadians with neutral-to-negative feelings about indigenous people touring the country and learning first hand about it:
I acknowledge there has been long-standing government oppression of these groups. In response, I suggest that these groups no longer be subject to the government that oppressed them. When a parent is mean to a child, a child deserves its parents apology. When a friend is mean to a friend, they won't be friends anymore. In a partnership of equals, the behavior you described would result in the equals separating their interests and continuing on with their existence, not continued apologies starting again the cycle of abuse.
>In response, I suggest that these groups no longer be subject to the government that oppressed them.
I'm curious what your experience is with historically oppressed populations. A lot of your comments in this thread come off, frankly, as overly simplistic and as ignoring the very real lasting effects historical oppression can have in the present.
To use your analogy: if your friend forcibly removes you from your house and makes you live in a cardboard box in the alley, ruling the alley and not being friends anymore is hardly a just resolution.
I mean, I'm a minority in America from a historically oppressed faction in my parent's country. I have experienced racism first hand from peers, as well as systematic racism from government agents. So my experience with 'historically oppressed' populations is quite broad, and informs my belief that the first step to reconciliation between an oppressing group and the oppressed is that the oppressed group gets to be treated as absolute equals. You seem to want to treat them paternalistically. As a current father, I can tell you that the relationship between me and my child is not one of equals.
> To use your analogy: if your friend forcibly removes you from your house and makes you live in a cardboard box in the alley, ruling the alley and not being friends anymore is hardly a just resolution.
Exactly. This is what has happened to the Native Americans. The US removed them from their home and is making them live in a cardboard box (reservations) in an alley (the nation of America) that is ruled by the federal government. I advocate carving out the cardboard boxes from the alley's jurisdiction, allowing the box occupants to leave and make deals with, purchase goods from and sell goods to other neighbors on neighboring streets. You want to simply promise to be a nicer alley owner as long as they stay in their boxes.
My belief is that if someone is wronged, they deserve to be made whole. If they are systematically wronged, then the just thing to do is to change the system to make them whole. If you tilt the scales in one direction for generations, and then suddenly cry "everyone is equal, no more favoring anyone", you're not actually treating people equally. You're papering over real inequality and pretending it doesn't exist.
>I advocate carving out the cardboard boxes from the alley's jurisdiction... You want to simply promise to be a nicer alley owner as long as they stay in their boxes.
Not at all. I want to help them build a new house.
Sure, and you can then agree with me that the first step in building a house for someone on land you own is to give them title to that section of land. Then you get to help them build. Otherwise, you're just holding them hostage.
> My belief is that if someone is wronged, they deserve to be made whole
You can't make someone whole after killing off all their ancestors. The US has done undoubted wrong. You can't fix it. It's only pride that makes you think that the government is in any way capable of making this whole. Leave that to God, man can't do it.
I have no support for this supposition, but it seems to me that this could easily result in abuse if Native Americans no longer had the protections of being a US citizen.
Can you imagine two British, on verge of losing their empire, sitting around thinking 'what will happen to those poor Indians. Once they become an independent nation, they won't have the protections of being British subjects. We must fight for the right of Indians, South Africans, Syrians, etc to be British subjects'?
Because if you can imagine it. That's exactly what you're arguing for here.
> So our government oppresses a group of people for centuries, and the response is to wash our hands of the situation and wish them well.
Of course not. There is room for arrangements with the United States regarding foreign aid, defense assistance, policing assistance, etc for some number of years. These are to be negotiated as treaties between two co-equal nations, not as laws between a country and its citizens. We make these arrangements with poor countries around the world everyday. Why do we treat the native americans worse than literally every other oppressed nation?
They’re not. You’re choosing maximally loaded phrasing at all points and then acting like you’ve been wronged when your posts are read into with the tone with which you decided to write them. If you are actually interested in discussion, it would help if you didn’t have a predilection for immediately poisonous phrasing after which you want to be granted generosity and assumptions of good faith.
Like, we've had this discussion before. You don't get to write like a jerk and then take umbrage when people react to you like you're a jerk. You get out what you put in.
> If you are actually interested in discussion, it would help if you didn’t have a predilection for immediately poisonous phrasing after which you want to be granted generosity and assumptions of good faith.
I am interested in discussion that does not add to what I've said based on other kinds of people that may have beliefs similar to me. That is surely not too much to ask for. What maximally loaded phrasing have I used in this discussion? Certainly suggesting the native americans get countries shouldn't be met with accusations of not wanting to provide them whatever compensation should be deemed necessary by treaty. The two issues (sovereignty and aid) are not necessarily related, as has been suggested.
I'm honestly quite curious, because I often do use loaded phrasing, but in this instance, I don't really see what is loaded. Perhaps something is loaded for you that is not loaded for me?
Man, I’m not going to play this game. This is /r/iamverysmart “ah, but you assumed” stuff, and I feel like you are easily smart enough to know that.
Perhaps, if you don’t want people to assume that you are advocating dumping people in the middle of nowhere without the protections of U.S. citizenship, you should not write in such a thuddingly absolutist manner that makes that assumption the apparently-obvious one, because there are plenty of internet edgelords who try to troll with exactly the half-a-position you led with--but hold only that half a position, ‘cause they’re as a general population racist pricks. I get that it requires some exercised empathy to critically read one's own stuff with an outsider lens, but if that's not something you can easily do you can also default to indicating that you have thought this through at more than the prima facie level that a normal-person reader would infer, to explicitly saying more than the barest minimum that invites misapprehension.
What I’m saying is that if you want to be afforded good faith, it helps to act like you deserve it and are giving it to others. But you write like you’re comfortable being perceived as a jerk, and that comes with some downsides, yeah? If you’d like to not be perceived as such, there are ways to work on more empathetic communication. Maybe try some?
Your argument is that, because some people you've talked to only say things without believing in them to troll, i must be trolling too. I mean okay. I still don't want words put in my mouth and that is a very reasonable thing to ask in a discussion.
I write my opinion forcefully because my opinion is absolute. This is a good thing that more people ought to work on. We should all know what the other thinks and we shouldn't feel the need to hide behind ambiguity to make ourselves more popular
But if you cant have a discussion without ad hominems, then i think im done here. Have a great day!
Well most native american tribes with land claims no longer exist any more (given that most were decimated by the varying colonial armies if they hadn't already been decimated by the spread of small pox), so the US would be just fine. But, to clarify above, I meant the boundaries already agreed to as boundaries of the quasi-sovereign 'nations' that are referred to (in a remarkably politically incorrect manner for this day and age) as 'Indian reservations'.
This would not be controversial were it not for most Americans' -- whether hick conservatives or rich white liberal -- love of continued colonialism and conquest. Functionally, and by US law, the reservations are to be treated as individual, sovereign nations. However, again by US law, they are not allowed to address foreign non-US nations as equals, because the US government will intervene. This is akin to the relationship between a parent and a teenager on the cusp of adulthood -- we will treat you like an adult, but don't get the false impression that you really are one. This American paternalism needs to end.
Yes a reservation is federal land held for the tribe. The tribal government however is a separate sovereign nation. You are making a distinction between indian reservations and indian nations that is the same as the distinction between the Vatican City State (being the area that houses the bishop of Rome) and the Holy See (being the actual entity that enjoys diplomatic sovereignty).
> An Indian tribe recognized by the United States government usually possesses tribal sovereignty, a "dependent sovereign nation" status with the Federal Government that is similar to that of a state in some situations, and that of a nation in others. Depending on the historic circumstances of recognition, the degree of self-government and sovereignty varies somewhat from one tribal nation to another.
The designation of 'tribal sovereignty' means they enjoy limited national sovereignty. Whereas the United States federal government allows other sovereign nations (with the exception of the 50 states that make up the united states) to interact with one another as equals, it restricts the ability of the tribes to do so. It does not allow the tribes to exercise full sovereignty over their land (as you point out).
> is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies
From what we read of tribal sovereignty above, the US government recognizes (as per the Constitution) that tribes have an inherent right to govern themselves, which is exactly sovereignty. Thus, I stand by what I said that, functionally, by US law, tribes are to be treated as individual sovereign nations.
I am arguing that these tribes ought to enjoy full sovereignty and the land held by the USA in their name (an infringement upon their demanded sovereignty) be remitted to them.
I suppose you may object to my usage of 'reservations' above. I do apologize, that was a mistake on my part. I should have said tribes. Reservations are not people. They are land.
I object to calling them sovereign nations when they're clearly not.
If they were truly sovereign you wouldn't feel the need to throw in the adjective "functionally".
A perfect counter-example is that post 9/11 the US stopped accepting VISA's given by the tribes. And federal law enforcement ABSOLUTELY has jurisdiction over tribal land.
Those 2 things by themselves put the nail in the coffin of the idea of tribal sovereignty.
> I object to calling them sovereign nations when they're clearly not.
Are the individual states sovereign? By the highest law of the land (the Constitution), they are.
Nevertheless, this is not an objection or an argument against the viewpoint I espoused: that they need to be granted full sovereignty. If they lack all indicators of sovereignty, as you claim, then this simply makes my claim that much more urgent.
> A perfect counter-example is that post 9/11 the US stopped accepting VISA's given by the tribes. And federal law enforcement ABSOLUTELY has jurisdiction over tribal land.
Um, sure. The feds also have jurisdiction over state land, but that doesn't mean the states lack sovereignty by federal law.
Also, the USA can object to any other country's VISA's for anyone entering its territory.
> Those 2 things by themselves put the nail in the coffin of the idea of tribal sovereignty.
You object to the law as it is? The current policy of the federal government is to grant certain parts of self direction to the tribes. The tribes are above certain US laws. This is a quasi-sovereignty, and I think it needs to be ended, because it is anti-thetical to a free nation (the United States). There are two ways to do this: get rid of tribal nations and Indian land entirely, or let them exercise their full rights as the nations the federal government claims they are.
Also, I am again arguing that they be granted full sovereign status. If they lack any sovereignty currently, that does not detract from my argument. They are clearly a separate people and want self-direction, as indicated by the fact that they established an entire justice system and government when allowed to. If -- as you claim -- these are not indicators of sovereignty, then these governments -- who claim sovereignty -- are in effect separatists. I am arguing that we should follow their desire to separate.
2. You used to be able to go to other countries using tribe issued travel VISA's. You no longer can.
3. The tribes are not "above" certain US laws. Federal laws still apply to them, local laws do not (state, city, etc). This claim of yours is akin to stating New York is "above" certain US laws because the laws of Nebraska do not apply in New York.
4. The federal government does not claim they are their own nation.
5. What you're suggesting is that the US government renege on agreements it made. Not a good look.
> In a 2-2-2 opinion, the Supreme Court held that the Cherokee Nation __was not a state or a foreign nation__, and that the Court therefore did not have original jurisdiction and could not hear the case..
In addition you should read up on "Indian Trust Responibility", and understand that these things are the way they are because our government signed treaties.
And finally:
Many (most?) of your statements in this conversation have been factually incorrect. Which is why I bothered to comment. I don't have an opinion, but I felt that you formed your opinion based upon incorrect information and you should be given the opportunity to reassess.
However, your last paragraph above leads me to believe your opinions are racially motivated. It's certainly not an accurate portrayal of widely held opinions of Native Americans. What next, Asians are separatist because China Town is a thing?
I won't be continuing this conversation, I find this distasteful.
Not everything that is the way it is, is right or just. We can work to better ourselves, we can have multiple problems, and we can work on all of them in parallel.
We need to end special treatment under the law for any race, white or red or whatever. No race should get special treatment in the United States. This country should welcome immigrants. If they don't want to be part of it, we should allow them to leave peacefully. That is the most sensible policy.
You've made three distinct points which might have been better offered split up:
> We need to end special treatment under the law for any race, white or red or whatever. No race should get special treatment in the United States.
While I prefer the phrasing "Nobody should get special treatment." I think most agree with this.
> This country should welcome immigrants.
I think many agree with this; however in the historical context we're all immigrants here. The Cherokees having crossed some land/sea bridge much longer ago, and Europeans and others arriving within the last 600 years. Also, defining which country you're talking about is crucial. I'm assuming you mean The United States, but a 'Cherokee nation' exists/existed too.
> If they don't want to be part of it, we should allow them to leave peacefully. That is the most sensible policy.
Leave for where, also Re: my paragraph above, didn't the sea-bound settlers arrive and take over the park they were living in?
> I'm assuming you mean The United States, but a 'Cherokee nation' exists/existed too.
So I actually mean the Cherokee nation. Their platform of excluding non-Cherokee from the nation is akin to the white supremacists of America not wanting non-whites to live in America. If the nation ends up getting its freedom (as I think they should), that sovereign state ought to be accepting of migrants, as the current government of the United States ought to be as well.
> Leave for where, also Re: my paragraph above, didn't the sea-bound settlers arrive and take over the park they were living in?
As espoused elsewhere, I am proposing that the currently defined indian reservations (with their boundaries set by treaty with the United States) be given the opportunity to leave the Union, and form independent sovereign states. I am not asking anyone to physically 'move', by ship, or car, or plane. I am referring to a figurative leaving -- letting the land leave the sovereignty of the United States and its member states.
Citizenship is also based on ancestry in the USA (natural born citizen).
Since there are African Americans and people with very little “indian blood” on the citizenship rolls for some tribes, that’s the argument it’s not a race based classification.
> Since there are African Americans and people with very little “indian blood”
I mean there are white people with little current Indian blood who meet the requirements because of an old ancestor. Why single out the African Americans?
> Citizenship is also based on ancestry in the USA (natural born citizen).
Sure, but the US is already a multicultural, multi-ethnic society, so... it would be more akin to a hypothetical US that ceased all immigration and naturalization, and only allowed natural born citizenship for a hundred years or so. I do agree that many other countries do this kind of thing, and I'm not sure it's good there either.
" First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.
I'm not sure how this is a response to my comment. If Hitler's response to the "Jewish problem" was to put the Jews into their own sovereign nation, then I don't think we would have had a Holocaust. But, yeah, I mean Goodwin's law and all.
OMG, you're right. Granting the native americans sovereignty over reservation land is exactly the same as enacting the Holocaust. You cannot make Hacker News up sometimes.
To summarize, the various Native American reservations are generally regarded as having tribal law apply to them instead of state law, which means that they are generally exempt from state regulations. If states don't permit gambling within their borders, a reservation providing the gambling instead tends to be an easy way for the reservation to make money, since they have no nearby casinos to compete with.
I honestly cannot see how one can support the electoral college and not support that the Cherokee get their special representation in Congress as well.
At least, if the argument for the electoral college used is the oft repeated ”people from the more populous states would trample over the less populous states”. Why are people from sparsely populated states a minority that has to be treated like a special snowflake, lest their rights be violated by the more populous ones, but minorities like Native Americans who have suffered centuries of oppression are not? Especially when you can move from one state to another but you cannot stop being Native American.
My suggestion is enough out of the box that many people will think I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not. This is a great idea. I think we should give out House seats to other groups who have been historically disadvantaged. Maybe we could have a few House members that only blacks get to vote for. It might be harder to identify LGBT people, but they could get one too as far as I'm concerned. It could be time limited, like maybe for 50 years or something. But it could fit under the reparations umbrella in a way that might be more tasteful to voters than just cutting a check to people.
In “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress,” one of the main characters tries to slow down the process of writing a constitution by giving the delegates too many choices. He starts by disparaging the most normal way of giving out representatives, with a statement along the lines of “surely where a man lives is the least interesting thing about him.” He then suggests, for instance, that trade unions be allowed to choose representatives.
I don’t think it’s actually workable, but I have to admit that Heinlein has a point: if you ask me to say something about myself, I never start with “I live in X neighborhood.” Why is my House district based on where I live instead of something more relevant?
The answer, of course, is that geographic representation is easy to understand and administer. But it also influences the kind of proposals my representative is willing to support or oppose. There are plenty of issues that I care about but my neighbors don’t, and my representative has no incentive to take a stand on those things.
You kind of get this "for free" with some forms of proportional representation. If any group (geographic, ethnic, religious, whatever) feels unrepresented, there is an opportunity for a party to win seats representing that group's interests.
what you suggest is probably close to the party based voting/elections/representation in Europe countries. Whenever there is a significant interest group they could/would form a party, like Pirate Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party_(Sweden) or Green Party for example while the majority of people is just covered by the typical couple of the Pepsi/Coca parties.
This could conceivably be done by creating a notion of special-interest delegates. The groups they represent could register, be voted on by the people (general election). If they received a sufficient vote (10-20%?) then they'd exist for some period of time (10-20 years?). People could then register with the special-interest groups of their choice (perhaps a limited number, with a minimum period of membership to avoid people attempting to spoil elections, they'd have to choose to join groups they cared about or groups they wished to spoil, but have a hard time doing both). Delegates would be nominated by various participants within the special-interest group. Consider that, a labor delegate, could be nominated by various unions, as an example. Or in your Catholic example, the Knights of Columbus and the Franciscan Order.
Delegates would be a sort of elected lobbyist, but instead of operating behind closed doors (so much), they'd have to layout their position in campaigns before being elected to such a position.
I'm not sure this'd be a good idea overall, it has a lot of downsides that I don't have time to describe as I'm about to head out the door. But there's some merit to the concept.
Oh if it wasn't clear, I was being facetious. This is an awful idea. All the groups mentioned above already have a legal, constitutional right to redress the government, being groups composed of individual citizens. Lobbyists, paid or not, elected or not, do not deserve floor time in Congress. They currently do not enjoy this privilege, thank goodness.
Back when the treaty signed, Native Americans did not have the right to vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_civil_rights#V...) thus a delegate would have been the only way for Native Americans to have a voice in Congress. This is the same with the other delegates, who all represent places that do not otherwise have representation in Congress.
Now Native Americans all have the right to vote, and thus have a voice in Congress.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Many tribal lands don't have street addresses and in some states you have to have a residence with an address to vote.
Yes this was an issue in a race I worked last cycle in Montana. Deliberately hostile SOS to benefit Rs
Reading the "How to Register to Vote" indicates otherwise. sosmt.gov/elections/vote/#how-to-register-to-vote
Specifically "You will need to provide a residence address or specific geographic location information from which your residence address may be determined. The residence address must be in the county in which you are registering."
This clearly allows someone without an "address" to register. In my experience identifying the Post Office on or near the tribe's land is plenty sufficient.
>or specific geographic location information from which your residence address may be determined.
The 'from which your residence address may be determined" reads, to me, like you still need an address. If you don't have a residence address, how can you provide information that determines where it is? It's nonexistent.
"SOS"?
"Secretary of state," I assume.
Secretary of State, i believe.
secretary of state sorry!
Still? IIRC North Dakota tried to make that the law but it was struck down.
The supreme court upheld the requirement that IDs have a street address, but some (maybe most or all, not sure) of the tribal authorities were able to assign street names and reissue IDs in time.
We should all move to gps coordinates
GPS coordinates of houses can change, while the address should stay the same.
Do you mean if the same house is moved to a new location on the same lot? I'm finding this difficult to imagine.
No, I mean the movement of earth underneath the house, tectonic plates etc. Earthquakes are one obvious example:
https://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/7182/does-an-earthqu...
To be fair, the cited displacement of 8 ft (average for non-earthquake situations is 0 to 10cm) is within the typical margin of error of a GPS. That is, the coordinate change is small enough not to matter for “election” purposes.
Addresses change a lot more often than gps coordinates. Streets get renamed, removed, or renumbered.
Fine... GPS coordinates as of a specific date.
IIRC, this "need to have an address" is something that had adversely affected some nomadic people Inuits of Nunavut, Canada. I guess that many of them were, more or less, forced to adopt permanent residences and it destroyed their nomadic way of life. It's something that had never occurred to me until a read an article on it. I'm sure the problem is more pervasive that I know.
Is there a reason why they don't have a street address in 2019? Do they not want them or is it funding or something else?
Not native American, but grew up in a rural area (in Canada). My parents only got a "street address" a couple of years ago. There is a land location system going back over a century, but basically no one who didn't live on a farm new how to interpret it (say 98% of the population), and so it was basically useless as an address. The new "street address" is actually based on the land location, but it is formatted like a street address (house number, road name) rather than specifying quarter, section, township, range, meridian. Throughout my childhood, we usually just used a postal address, but in the last couple of decades, bank officials and the like have gotten more and more insistent on a physical address which we were basically unable to provide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Land_Survey
Native American land laws are a disaster, and it’s not their fault. It’s a large contributor to poverty as well. I’m still not sure if that was an unintended or intended consequence of US govt treaties.
Why is this comment so downvoted? I'm not american, and I was also curious about why they don't have an adress.
As far as I know, only homeless people don't have an adress in Denmark.
EDIT: Great, now I'm downvoted as well! Huzzah!
Where I grew up in Montana, we didn't have a street address. Only about 20 years ago did they name the road (after my grandfather) and assign addresses.
All I have to say to this is a deal's a deal. Doesn't matter if it was 184 years ago. :)
The Civil War happened subsequently, in which many Cherokee fought for the Confederacy. 25 U.S.C. Sec. 72 allows the President to declare treaties abrogated by tribes engaging in "actual hostility to the United States", which alliance with the Confederacy certainly was.
So the issue is more complicated than you state.
* addendum since this is likely flame bait. The Cherokee, having been betrayed by Andrew Jackson and by the United States in general, had plenty of reason to support the confederacy. Have a look at Wikipedia for a historical overview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_in_the_American_Civil...
A lot of people fought for the confederacy, but their descendants still have representation in congress because peace was made and status restored. Also I don't think you can make a case that the Cherokee Nation was at war with the United States during that time, just because some of its citizens joined irregular militias.
Cherokee also have representation in Congress because they have senators and representatives that they vote for every year just like everyone else.
I believe the sentiment is that Cherokees and other native american nations aren't sufficiently represented by their elected officials. in much the same way they have been marginalized for centuries.
Honest question: Do you think "one [hu]man one vote" is wrong?
Sometimes, if the voting methodology is bad.
The city of Yakima was found [1] to have violated the Voting Rights Act a few years back because they have a significant Latino minority and yet somehow no Latinos would ever be elected to city council. This is because every voter votes on every city council seat, and because the town's majority of white voters apparently has a preference for white candidates.
I don't remember what the solution was, I think they either split the town into districts, each with its own city council member, or used some kind of proportional representation system.
[1] https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/federal-court-rules-yaki...
No, but do you think that is an accurate representation of US politics? From the outside it seems that "one dollar one vote" applies equally well (and is equally wrong).
I don't quite understand your question. if you're asking whether I think the Cherokees deserve a vote in the house, I say "yes".
They're probably referring to the fact that the Cherokee members are already represented by their US legislators in the same way that other US residents are. Providing them this vote would give them more representation, and they're asking if you believe that's a better solution.
Would it? I think it's possible that other laws may mean that they have one vote, and thus have to choose whether to have their vote apply in the congressional district they are physically in, or to the Cherokee representative seat they are alotted for a non-geographical district. That would retain one vote for one person. This isn't even all that weird, I assume. Do people with residences in multiple districts get to vote in each, or do they have to choose?
They definitely have to choose, and many places I've lived in explicitly mention that also voting in another place (in the US) is a crime.
Relevantly - if their Cherokee delegate is a non-voting delegate, then while they may have two representatives on the floor of the house speaking for their interests, they only have one who can be involved in the formal exercise of said House's power.
A delegate would not have a vote on the house floor. They are more like an ambassador than a representative.
If "many Cherokee" can be classified as a "Cherokee alliance", Pemberton and Cooper, actual Confederate generals, should as well, applying these laws in context of the 14th ammendment. So no more representatives from PA or NJ?
Cherokees and Confederates? That's the oddest collab I could ever imagine. What was their official stance on the institution of slavery? That seriously is one of the strangest bits of US history I've ever learned.
>All I have to say to this is a deal's a deal. Doesn't matter if it was 184 years ago.
It doesn't work like that when you make a deal with the government. Just ask a native American if you don't believe me. :)
A tautology - US has disenfranchised and cheated the native Americans before so it should continue ?
I would agree with cheated, not disenfranchised. It's easy to make the argument that they're not continuing disenfranchisement here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)
They theoretically have a right to vote. Stop making laws that disenfranchise them, then you can consider changing the deal. But we made a deal. Plus the us has never stood up to it's side of deals with native americans.
Here is a photo of the Cherokee Nation capital building, preserved at New Echota, Georgia. https://joshuacurry.com/american-way/cherokee-capitol-new-ec... This was once the epicenter of the Cherokee government which organized to trade with the colonies. It was taken by a group of 20 non-natives who signed the treaty of New Echota without native consent and enforced by Andrew Jackson. This particular action began the "Trail of Tears". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_New_Echota
Perhaps we should just grant statehood to the various Indian nations so they may be formally admitted into this republic. I am not a fan of giving representation to alien nations. I'm not sure our courts have legal jurisdiction over such agreements so long as they are extra-national, so there may be no way to enforce it.
The modern state of Oklahoma was effectively the dumping ground for all of the Indian nations that were forcibly relocated, predominantly the "Five Civilized Tribes" of the Southeast who were forced out by Andrew Jackson. From 1889 to 1895, the unassigned territories, and later "unused" lands previously allotted to the relocated Indians, were given out to settlers in a series of land runs, and the involved lands were collected into an Oklahoma Territory.
In response to these pressures, the Indian Territory then attempted to turn their territory into a full state (Sequoyah), but this was turned down by Congress, which wanted the Oklahoma and Indian Territories merged into a single state instead. I believe this was motivated by political concerns, but this isn't an area of history I know very well.
It should also be noted that many of the actions the US government took during this time with respect to the Native Americans were flagrantly in violation of laws and treaties that existed, too. Any treaty the US government made with the natives were not worth the paper they were written on.
Are you referring to the Cherokee Nation as alien, meaning that the US is the native nation? How warped a world view one must have to say something like that with no sense of irony.
Are you claiming that the Cherokee nation is subject to the US government? That's arguing in favor of a form of colonialism. It is your worldview that is warped. The Cherokee (and any other native nation wanting their land back) are best served by granting them status as fully sovereign individual nations, as alien to the United States as the United Kingdom and Canada. Can you imagine if we tried to impose our law on Canada? Why then should we allow other nations which ought to enjoy sovereignty to remain subject to the United States?
If, after being recognized as a separate nation by the United States, they would like to seek entrance to the Union as a separate state, then they can petition Congress for that right, as any other sovereign nation is allowed to do.
We do impose our laws on the tribes, right? I mean, they have their own criminal courts and everything, but they are limited in their ability to mete out punishment. As far as I understand, they cannot form treaties with other nations. They can't raise armies. States can compel establishments within native american tribal territories to collect sales taxes on non-native people.
I don't think it's technically correct to say that they are subjects of the US government. The US doesn't really have subjects at all, right? We have citizens, and Native Americans are citizens of the United States. But it is likewise incorrect to say they are sovereign, at least as we typically think of national sovereignty.
Please help me correct any misunderstandings.
> I mean, they have their own criminal courts and everything, but they are limited in their ability to mete out punishment. As far as I understand, they cannot form treaties with other nations. They can't raise armies. States can compel establishments within native american tribal territories to collect sales taxes on non-native people.
Yes, that is why I made the point that I think they would be best served by granting them fully sovereign status. You can't be granted sovereign status if you're already sovereign. The USA maintains its authority over the cherokee in the same way it maintains authority over certain aspects of the states.
> The US doesn't really have subjects at all, right? We have citizens
Citizens of the US are subject to the laws of the United States. To be subject to a law means that you must follow it under penalty of legal proceedings.
> But it is likewise incorrect to say they are sovereign, at least as we typically think of national sovereignty.
This is an overly simplistic view of sovereignty. Per the Constitution, the individual 50 states are fully sovereign. They have given up some sovereignty to the federal government, in certain matters, such as international relations. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that, according to US federal law, they are to be treated as sovereign entities. This shared sovereignty is the basis of American federalism. The tribes operate under a similar arrangement. The Constitution allows the federal government to enter into treaties with the Indians as if they are foreign governments. The current US policy is to grant them 'tribal sovereignty' which is a half sovereignty enjoyed by the states. However, unlike the states, where they chose deliberately to give up their sovereignty to become part of the United States, the tribes were forced to sign treaties, forcibly uprooted, forcibly slaughtered, etc.
> Per the Constitution, the individual 50 states are fully sovereign.
As far as I can find, the constitution does not use the word "sovereign." Can you point me to which clause you're referring to? It's also worth noting that whatever the constitution says, the states are de facto less independent than many envisioned at the turn of the 19th century.
> Can you imagine if we tried to impose our law on Canada?
That's exactly what the US is already doing with some of its extraterritorial laws. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorialit%C3%A9_du_dr...
The existence of these does not detract from my argument the Indian nations should be granted national sovereignty
I think alien and native are orthogonal terms. If we landed on an inhabited planet we would call those inhabitants aliens, not to imply that their planet is our native land, but to state that they are different than us. In the same way, the parent comment refers to a nation different from the US as an alien nation.
I don't think "alien" is the most common way to refer to foreign nations, but it's not wrong or rude to my knowledge. Your comment seems uncharitable and insulting though.
I believe OP is referring to how Indian nations are governed and the laws that apply to them. They're outside the scope of US law (so they're alien). The word choice is ironic historically but it's not incorrect and it further isn't as though OP was implying natives are not legitimately native.
they're not outside the scope of US law.
Governments set laws based upon land areas. This is why we have things like county lines, state lines, city lines, etc.
But these local governments have no jurisdiction over federal land. This is why you can have a federal building in the middle of a city, and that city's laws do not apply to the building, or the land around the building (that's held by the US government).
Native land is technically federal land that's held on behalf of the tribes. And THIS is why local laws don't apply to native land.
It's a common misconception that native american tribes are sovereign. They're considered 'domestic dependent nations', but not sovereign. This is why, for example, the US can limit their ability to issue drivers licenses and travel VISA's.
But they are outside the scope in very important ways this glosses over and which does make them much more sovereign than a state, such as sin taxes (cigarettes) and gun law enforcement (a PMC was incorporated in and trading fully automatic weapons through Indian territory). The basis for those is what is important.
It's very simple. It's federal land and therefore cannot be taxed by the local governments.
I'm not totally sold on this interpretation, I've interacted with enough territorial land that I got the impression it is completely left to the tribes. It may technically be "under federal jurisdiction" but if a treaty ceded any or most right to law enforcement then it's independent.
Then you disagree with the interpretation of the US Supreme Court, take it up with them.
federal gun laws still apply on native land -- most federal law applies in fact.
It's ironic but it's not untrue.
The connotation of alien used here is something that is foreign, unfamiliar, or culturally distinct to a person or nation. Nativeness isn't relevant.
alien, noun: a person of another family, race or nation.
You seem to be criticizing it in the sense of "exotic", which is a fairly hostile reading.
They have said it better as "giving representation to other nations". It is less usual to grant other nations representation in the house and senate, but the Native American tribes are not exactly independent nations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21275381
this is on a website that defended stallman's pro-pedophilia comments
This is on a website that actually has people of many differing opinions.
News flash, a website like this is filled with a great deal of many people. Yes, even the likes of you are included therein.
Not sure how that would work. Nevertheless, I would be really surprised if recognized Tribes would voluntarily give up their sovereignty to become a state.
Because in a sense of practical power, state sovereignty comprises most of the benefits of tribal sovereignty.
At that point you ask if the differences in sovereignty are worth 2 votes in the Senate and (at least) 1 in the House. I'd argue yes.
Good point. Given that there are 500+ officially recognized tribes in the US I imagine statehood is out.
Oh yeah- and it's an entirely different matter of if the existing states would want to even offer statehood...
I haven't been to the Cherokee reservation, but have been to a couple of reservations for smaller tribes.
They were universally sad/depressing places. Usually they have one central liquor store/"market" with drunk people hanging out in front. Dirty and dilapidated buildings...lots of natives suffering from diabetes and obesity.
What this country did and continues to do to the natives contrasts sharply with how we preach "human rights" and such to the rest of the world.
> and continues to do to the natives
What is it that we are doing now (other than inflammatory sport team names)? I'm pretty naive on this topic, so I don't mean this as an attack, but as a legitimate question.
I feel like someone else can do a better job with a comprehensive list, but I can give an anecdote from my experience.
A few years ago I sat in on a tribal economic development forum in one of the western states. Not a tribal member, just an invited guest.
One of the issues one of the tribes had was: they don't have water rights to the water that supplies one of their towns. The water comes from their land, but they're required by a 1920s-era local ordinance to sell it to a neighboring town, that then sells it back to them. They want that local ordinance removed, so they aren't paying the neighboring town for, literally, their own water.
The neighboring town isn't filtering it, isn't processing it, it's just enjoying the largesse of some local politician nearly a hundred years ago, writing a law that rips off the tribe.
They just want the ordinance removed. They just want to have their water at extraction cost.
This was one 15-minute section in a day-long conference. This was the "rapid fire" petitions to representatives from state government.
Next section: In a city somewhere else in the state, someone's building a police station. The contract is out for public bid, but the contracting language said "Bidders must reside in our county, with zip codes xxxx, yyyy, zzzz excluded from bidding." The excluded zip codes corresponded exactly to where the reservation land lay.
The tribe was there, asking for the contracting language to be changed, so that they could merely submit a bid for one of their construction companies -- not that they wanted any special treatment, but they literally just wanted to be treated like any other zip code in the county.
That was another 15 minute section in the rapid-fire requests.
All day long like that.
Wow... thanks for sharing your story. I always thought it was mainly the feds being completely inept when it came to Indian Affairs but I guess it's not surprising the local governments are the same way.
Not inept, just malicious and corrupt.
So, institutionalised rasism. (And a lot of other dirty -isms, I'm sure.)
The federal government continues to horribly mismanage reservation lands and the resources located on them.
"Tribes historically had little or no control over their energy resources. Royalties were set by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but the agency consistently undervalued Indian resources. A federal commission concluded in 1977 that leases negotiated on behalf of Indians were 'among the poorest agreements ever made.'
Unfortunately, it hasn’t gotten much better. A recent class action suit alleged that the government mismanaged billions of dollars in Indian assets. The case settled in 2009 for $3.4 billion—far less than what was lost by the feds."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/13/5-ways-the-...
We like stealing their children for one thing:
https://www.npr.org/2011/10/25/141672992/native-foster-care-...
https://theintercept.com/2019/06/17/indian-child-welfare-act...
There was the whole oil pipeline thing right after the recent administration came to power.
Check out Days of Destruction by Chris Hedges. One chapter is focused on the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota.
Neglect.
According to https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/state-and-regional/citing-tr... the delegate might not be able to vote
There's no "might not be able to vote", they would not be able to vote, the position is a non-voting delegate.
Delegates do, however, have floor privileges, the right to sit on committees and vote with them, and the right to vote on legislation. Under the current House rules for the 116th Congress, delegates can also vote with the Committee of the Whole,[0] though if theirs is the deciding vote on a measure, a new vote takes place without them. For the past few decades, that privilege--such as it is--gets restored or removed depending on which party controls the House. In spite of their non-voting status, delegates do have at least some power and influence in the House that can be leveraged on behalf of their constituents.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_the_Whole_(United...
> though if theirs is the deciding vote on a measure, a new vote takes place without them
Doesn't this mean they effectively can't vote? It seems they can only vote on things that would have passed (or been rejected anyway.
This is fascinating. Good for them in researching their historical rights. I hope they succeed - it will only help Congress to have their views represented.
I would imagine that Carpenter v. Murphy might end up being a bit of an indicator on which way this will end up getting litigated.
You beat me to it! Carpenter is a very interesting case that I was following last term.
If you're unfamiliar, the case is about the disputed abolishment of certain reservations in Oklahoma. If the court rules that the reservations were never actually abolished, among other things, a large portion of Oklahoma would actually be on reservation lands.
This is the Roberts court; regardless of who wins, the ruling will be, IMHO, an extremely narrow one. Don't expect any land titles to change hands.
Definitely agree. Roberts court aside, I remember during oral argument some justices being very uncomfortable with the ramifications of a strong ruling on either side.
Especially since Gorsuch recused himself.
Am I the only one that finds the article strange?
I mean: "Most times, they can’t vote on the House floor..." - In the quoted text 'they' refers to the delegate that the Cherokee nation would get.
So they are fighting for a delegate with no floor voting power.
Then the article seems to conclude: "...the new delegate would give extra weight to Cherokee Nation citizens’ votes — a so-called “super vote.”
How can these two be? IANAL, so maybe someone with a legal background has some insight?
Delegates can't take part in the final floor vote on bills, but they can be part of committee votes before that, including (depending on the rules for that particular Congressional session) 'Committee of the Whole' votes when the entire House votes on non-final-bill matters.
Ok. But does that really carry weight?
I mean, the way we treat our territories makes me think it doesn't. But I could be wrong.
It doesn't carry a lot of weight, but it's better than nothing.
> since it would cover geographical territory that’s already part of two congressional districts
Correct me if I'm wrong but these districts can be created, destroyed or redrawn practically at a whim, no? I recall some ramblings that Democrats might remove the district in which AOC runs because they don't like her.
Don't know much about this issue just thinking it's a rather weak excuse.
The "Cherokee Nation" which abrogated any claim to being an actual separate national entity within the USA when they agreed to national recognition and citizenship within the boundaries of Oklahoma, already have two delegates in two different districts, the first and second Congressional districts of Oklahoma.
Pity she is a Democrat, but good that some representation is finally present.
I'm no bleeding heart SJW, but holy hell do the native people deserve some type of representation in our govt. The atrocities committed against them were unconscionable.
Actually, we need to do one of two things:
(1) Treat the natives like any other citizen, so no special land reservations etc, or
(2) Grant them completely separate sovereign nation status and end this ridiculous quasi-sovereign state of affairs we find ourselves in. No person deserves special rights or recognition because their grandfather (or grandmother) was of a certain race. That is antithetical to a free society. The easy solution here is to cede all land back to them, and establish proper international relations.
Understandably, natives want their own land. That's great, but they can't get that if there's another government in their way. Understandably, states want full sovereignty over their own land, but they can't get that if there exist quasi-nations in the way. The obvious solution is to allow them actual self governance.
That viewpoint is needlessly absolutist. There's obviously no way that native nations could even afford to negotiate with the US Federal Government. That was true 184 years ago, and it's still true now. At the same time these people do deserve special treatment, being the subjects of systemic oppression that continues to this very day. If we really believe that native Americans are valuable as native Americans (and I think that they are) then we need to provide governance structure that can work for them.
It's yet more evidence, as if more was needed, that the idea of a "melting pot" is fundamentally the wrong way to think about multiculturalism.
> If we really believe that native Americans are valuable as native Americans (and I think that they are) then we need to provide governance structure that can work for them.
An individual who is a native american is valuable because they are a human. Their race does not factor into their worth, thank goodness. We need to provide governance capable of working for the 300(400?) million people that call the United States home. None of those people should get outsized consideration, and especially none for their race.
No nation can actually afford to negotiate with the US federal government as equals. Perhaps China and Russia are two exceptions. My proposed nations would nevertheless enjoy the same sovereignty that many other nations enjoy. If they would like US help, they can ask for protectorate status (like the Mariana islands), and the US should comply, because we should be friends with our neighboring countries, especially what would functionally be ex-colonies. The US needs to wash its hands of this kind of colonialism now, or it will fester and get much much worse.
The point of reconciliation/reparations is acknowledging that have been long-standing systemic oppression of these groups— it isn't a matter of just bucking up and working hard when you're subject to multi-generational trauma. I don't know as much about the US situation, but in Canada there was a long period of intentional attempted cultural genocide, where indigenous kids were literally ripped from their parents' arms and sent to far off boarding schools and taught to behave white. That would be bad enough if it wasn't also an environment with almost no oversight that led to rampant other abuses, including sexual.
And this wasn't really all that long ago— the last of these residential schools didn't close until 1996.
If you're interested in more about this, APTN did a terrific series called First Contact, which featured everyday Canadians with neutral-to-negative feelings about indigenous people touring the country and learning first hand about it:
https://aptn.ca/firstcontact/video/season-1/
I acknowledge there has been long-standing government oppression of these groups. In response, I suggest that these groups no longer be subject to the government that oppressed them. When a parent is mean to a child, a child deserves its parents apology. When a friend is mean to a friend, they won't be friends anymore. In a partnership of equals, the behavior you described would result in the equals separating their interests and continuing on with their existence, not continued apologies starting again the cycle of abuse.
>In response, I suggest that these groups no longer be subject to the government that oppressed them.
I'm curious what your experience is with historically oppressed populations. A lot of your comments in this thread come off, frankly, as overly simplistic and as ignoring the very real lasting effects historical oppression can have in the present.
To use your analogy: if your friend forcibly removes you from your house and makes you live in a cardboard box in the alley, ruling the alley and not being friends anymore is hardly a just resolution.
I mean, I'm a minority in America from a historically oppressed faction in my parent's country. I have experienced racism first hand from peers, as well as systematic racism from government agents. So my experience with 'historically oppressed' populations is quite broad, and informs my belief that the first step to reconciliation between an oppressing group and the oppressed is that the oppressed group gets to be treated as absolute equals. You seem to want to treat them paternalistically. As a current father, I can tell you that the relationship between me and my child is not one of equals.
> To use your analogy: if your friend forcibly removes you from your house and makes you live in a cardboard box in the alley, ruling the alley and not being friends anymore is hardly a just resolution.
Exactly. This is what has happened to the Native Americans. The US removed them from their home and is making them live in a cardboard box (reservations) in an alley (the nation of America) that is ruled by the federal government. I advocate carving out the cardboard boxes from the alley's jurisdiction, allowing the box occupants to leave and make deals with, purchase goods from and sell goods to other neighbors on neighboring streets. You want to simply promise to be a nicer alley owner as long as they stay in their boxes.
My belief is that if someone is wronged, they deserve to be made whole. If they are systematically wronged, then the just thing to do is to change the system to make them whole. If you tilt the scales in one direction for generations, and then suddenly cry "everyone is equal, no more favoring anyone", you're not actually treating people equally. You're papering over real inequality and pretending it doesn't exist.
>I advocate carving out the cardboard boxes from the alley's jurisdiction... You want to simply promise to be a nicer alley owner as long as they stay in their boxes.
Not at all. I want to help them build a new house.
> I want to help them build a new house.
Sure, and you can then agree with me that the first step in building a house for someone on land you own is to give them title to that section of land. Then you get to help them build. Otherwise, you're just holding them hostage.
> My belief is that if someone is wronged, they deserve to be made whole
You can't make someone whole after killing off all their ancestors. The US has done undoubted wrong. You can't fix it. It's only pride that makes you think that the government is in any way capable of making this whole. Leave that to God, man can't do it.
I have no support for this supposition, but it seems to me that this could easily result in abuse if Native Americans no longer had the protections of being a US citizen.
Can you imagine two British, on verge of losing their empire, sitting around thinking 'what will happen to those poor Indians. Once they become an independent nation, they won't have the protections of being British subjects. We must fight for the right of Indians, South Africans, Syrians, etc to be British subjects'?
Because if you can imagine it. That's exactly what you're arguing for here.
So our government oppresses a group of people for centuries, and the response is to wash our hands of the situation and wish them well.
When a prisoner is wrongfully convicted, there is often additional compensation beyond just releasing them from jail.
I have no problem with making them sovereign nations, but we owe them additional compensation.
> So our government oppresses a group of people for centuries, and the response is to wash our hands of the situation and wish them well.
Of course not. There is room for arrangements with the United States regarding foreign aid, defense assistance, policing assistance, etc for some number of years. These are to be negotiated as treaties between two co-equal nations, not as laws between a country and its citizens. We make these arrangements with poor countries around the world everyday. Why do we treat the native americans worse than literally every other oppressed nation?
Please stop putting words in my mouth.
> Please stop putting words in my mouth.
They’re not. You’re choosing maximally loaded phrasing at all points and then acting like you’ve been wronged when your posts are read into with the tone with which you decided to write them. If you are actually interested in discussion, it would help if you didn’t have a predilection for immediately poisonous phrasing after which you want to be granted generosity and assumptions of good faith.
Like, we've had this discussion before. You don't get to write like a jerk and then take umbrage when people react to you like you're a jerk. You get out what you put in.
> If you are actually interested in discussion, it would help if you didn’t have a predilection for immediately poisonous phrasing after which you want to be granted generosity and assumptions of good faith.
I am interested in discussion that does not add to what I've said based on other kinds of people that may have beliefs similar to me. That is surely not too much to ask for. What maximally loaded phrasing have I used in this discussion? Certainly suggesting the native americans get countries shouldn't be met with accusations of not wanting to provide them whatever compensation should be deemed necessary by treaty. The two issues (sovereignty and aid) are not necessarily related, as has been suggested.
I'm honestly quite curious, because I often do use loaded phrasing, but in this instance, I don't really see what is loaded. Perhaps something is loaded for you that is not loaded for me?
Man, I’m not going to play this game. This is /r/iamverysmart “ah, but you assumed” stuff, and I feel like you are easily smart enough to know that.
Perhaps, if you don’t want people to assume that you are advocating dumping people in the middle of nowhere without the protections of U.S. citizenship, you should not write in such a thuddingly absolutist manner that makes that assumption the apparently-obvious one, because there are plenty of internet edgelords who try to troll with exactly the half-a-position you led with--but hold only that half a position, ‘cause they’re as a general population racist pricks. I get that it requires some exercised empathy to critically read one's own stuff with an outsider lens, but if that's not something you can easily do you can also default to indicating that you have thought this through at more than the prima facie level that a normal-person reader would infer, to explicitly saying more than the barest minimum that invites misapprehension.
What I’m saying is that if you want to be afforded good faith, it helps to act like you deserve it and are giving it to others. But you write like you’re comfortable being perceived as a jerk, and that comes with some downsides, yeah? If you’d like to not be perceived as such, there are ways to work on more empathetic communication. Maybe try some?
Your argument is that, because some people you've talked to only say things without believing in them to troll, i must be trolling too. I mean okay. I still don't want words put in my mouth and that is a very reasonable thing to ask in a discussion.
I write my opinion forcefully because my opinion is absolute. This is a good thing that more people ought to work on. We should all know what the other thinks and we shouldn't feel the need to hide behind ambiguity to make ourselves more popular
But if you cant have a discussion without ad hominems, then i think im done here. Have a great day!
If we ceded all land back to them, the United States would cease to exist, having no land left.
Well most native american tribes with land claims no longer exist any more (given that most were decimated by the varying colonial armies if they hadn't already been decimated by the spread of small pox), so the US would be just fine. But, to clarify above, I meant the boundaries already agreed to as boundaries of the quasi-sovereign 'nations' that are referred to (in a remarkably politically incorrect manner for this day and age) as 'Indian reservations'.
This would not be controversial were it not for most Americans' -- whether hick conservatives or rich white liberal -- love of continued colonialism and conquest. Functionally, and by US law, the reservations are to be treated as individual, sovereign nations. However, again by US law, they are not allowed to address foreign non-US nations as equals, because the US government will intervene. This is akin to the relationship between a parent and a teenager on the cusp of adulthood -- we will treat you like an adult, but don't get the false impression that you really are one. This American paternalism needs to end.
that's factually untrue, reservations are federal land held for the tribes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation
Your other claims are no more accurate than this one either.
Yes a reservation is federal land held for the tribe. The tribal government however is a separate sovereign nation. You are making a distinction between indian reservations and indian nations that is the same as the distinction between the Vatican City State (being the area that houses the bishop of Rome) and the Holy See (being the actual entity that enjoys diplomatic sovereignty).
For what I am talking about (tribes being akin to sovereign nations), you should research Native American 'Tribes': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_(Native_American)
> An Indian tribe recognized by the United States government usually possesses tribal sovereignty, a "dependent sovereign nation" status with the Federal Government that is similar to that of a state in some situations, and that of a nation in others. Depending on the historic circumstances of recognition, the degree of self-government and sovereignty varies somewhat from one tribal nation to another.
The designation of 'tribal sovereignty' means they enjoy limited national sovereignty. Whereas the United States federal government allows other sovereign nations (with the exception of the 50 states that make up the united states) to interact with one another as equals, it restricts the ability of the tribes to do so. It does not allow the tribes to exercise full sovereignty over their land (as you point out).
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_Unit...
> The idea that tribes have an inherent right to govern themselves is at the foundation of their constitutional status
Again, back to what I said. I said:
> Functionally, and by US law, the reservations are to be treated as individual, sovereign nations.
Sovereignty means (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty):
> is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies
From what we read of tribal sovereignty above, the US government recognizes (as per the Constitution) that tribes have an inherent right to govern themselves, which is exactly sovereignty. Thus, I stand by what I said that, functionally, by US law, tribes are to be treated as individual sovereign nations.
I am arguing that these tribes ought to enjoy full sovereignty and the land held by the USA in their name (an infringement upon their demanded sovereignty) be remitted to them.
I suppose you may object to my usage of 'reservations' above. I do apologize, that was a mistake on my part. I should have said tribes. Reservations are not people. They are land.
I object to calling them sovereign nations when they're clearly not.
If they were truly sovereign you wouldn't feel the need to throw in the adjective "functionally".
A perfect counter-example is that post 9/11 the US stopped accepting VISA's given by the tribes. And federal law enforcement ABSOLUTELY has jurisdiction over tribal land.
Those 2 things by themselves put the nail in the coffin of the idea of tribal sovereignty.
> I object to calling them sovereign nations when they're clearly not.
Are the individual states sovereign? By the highest law of the land (the Constitution), they are.
Nevertheless, this is not an objection or an argument against the viewpoint I espoused: that they need to be granted full sovereignty. If they lack all indicators of sovereignty, as you claim, then this simply makes my claim that much more urgent.
> A perfect counter-example is that post 9/11 the US stopped accepting VISA's given by the tribes. And federal law enforcement ABSOLUTELY has jurisdiction over tribal land.
Um, sure. The feds also have jurisdiction over state land, but that doesn't mean the states lack sovereignty by federal law.
Also, the USA can object to any other country's VISA's for anyone entering its territory.
> Those 2 things by themselves put the nail in the coffin of the idea of tribal sovereignty.
You object to the law as it is? The current policy of the federal government is to grant certain parts of self direction to the tribes. The tribes are above certain US laws. This is a quasi-sovereignty, and I think it needs to be ended, because it is anti-thetical to a free nation (the United States). There are two ways to do this: get rid of tribal nations and Indian land entirely, or let them exercise their full rights as the nations the federal government claims they are.
Also, I am again arguing that they be granted full sovereign status. If they lack any sovereignty currently, that does not detract from my argument. They are clearly a separate people and want self-direction, as indicated by the fact that they established an entire justice system and government when allowed to. If -- as you claim -- these are not indicators of sovereignty, then these governments -- who claim sovereignty -- are in effect separatists. I am arguing that we should follow their desire to separate.
1. states are not sovereign.
2. You used to be able to go to other countries using tribe issued travel VISA's. You no longer can.
3. The tribes are not "above" certain US laws. Federal laws still apply to them, local laws do not (state, city, etc). This claim of yours is akin to stating New York is "above" certain US laws because the laws of Nebraska do not apply in New York.
4. The federal government does not claim they are their own nation.
5. What you're suggesting is that the US government renege on agreements it made. Not a good look.
I strongly recommend you read over this, it will work to correct a lot of the misinformation. https://www.doi.gov/pmb/cadr/programs/native/gtgworkshop/The...
> In a 2-2-2 opinion, the Supreme Court held that the Cherokee Nation __was not a state or a foreign nation__, and that the Court therefore did not have original jurisdiction and could not hear the case..
In addition you should read up on "Indian Trust Responibility", and understand that these things are the way they are because our government signed treaties.
And finally:
Many (most?) of your statements in this conversation have been factually incorrect. Which is why I bothered to comment. I don't have an opinion, but I felt that you formed your opinion based upon incorrect information and you should be given the opportunity to reassess.
However, your last paragraph above leads me to believe your opinions are racially motivated. It's certainly not an accurate portrayal of widely held opinions of Native Americans. What next, Asians are separatist because China Town is a thing?
I won't be continuing this conversation, I find this distasteful.
I don't think this comment needs any qualification
And yet....MOST Americans are against reparations for Slavery....
Yeah, I'm all for it. If anyone can out-victimize our entitled political factions, its the Native Americans.
Which factions do you have in mind?
You'd probably start with 'healthy young university-educated white women' and work your way out from there.
Not everything that is the way it is, is right or just. We can work to better ourselves, we can have multiple problems, and we can work on all of them in parallel.
We need to end special treatment under the law for any race, white or red or whatever. No race should get special treatment in the United States. This country should welcome immigrants. If they don't want to be part of it, we should allow them to leave peacefully. That is the most sensible policy.
You've made three distinct points which might have been better offered split up:
> We need to end special treatment under the law for any race, white or red or whatever. No race should get special treatment in the United States.
While I prefer the phrasing "Nobody should get special treatment." I think most agree with this.
> This country should welcome immigrants.
I think many agree with this; however in the historical context we're all immigrants here. The Cherokees having crossed some land/sea bridge much longer ago, and Europeans and others arriving within the last 600 years. Also, defining which country you're talking about is crucial. I'm assuming you mean The United States, but a 'Cherokee nation' exists/existed too.
> If they don't want to be part of it, we should allow them to leave peacefully. That is the most sensible policy.
Leave for where, also Re: my paragraph above, didn't the sea-bound settlers arrive and take over the park they were living in?
> I'm assuming you mean The United States, but a 'Cherokee nation' exists/existed too.
So I actually mean the Cherokee nation. Their platform of excluding non-Cherokee from the nation is akin to the white supremacists of America not wanting non-whites to live in America. If the nation ends up getting its freedom (as I think they should), that sovereign state ought to be accepting of migrants, as the current government of the United States ought to be as well.
> Leave for where, also Re: my paragraph above, didn't the sea-bound settlers arrive and take over the park they were living in?
As espoused elsewhere, I am proposing that the currently defined indian reservations (with their boundaries set by treaty with the United States) be given the opportunity to leave the Union, and form independent sovereign states. I am not asking anyone to physically 'move', by ship, or car, or plane. I am referring to a figurative leaving -- letting the land leave the sovereignty of the United States and its member states.
Native American tribes in the USA are arguably not based on race, but on citizenship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Indians_in_the_United_St...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_freedmen_controversy
Tribal membership is typically based on ancestry which is a code word for race.
Citizenship is also based on ancestry in the USA (natural born citizen).
Since there are African Americans and people with very little “indian blood” on the citizenship rolls for some tribes, that’s the argument it’s not a race based classification.
> Since there are African Americans and people with very little “indian blood”
I mean there are white people with little current Indian blood who meet the requirements because of an old ancestor. Why single out the African Americans?
> Citizenship is also based on ancestry in the USA (natural born citizen).
Sure, but the US is already a multicultural, multi-ethnic society, so... it would be more akin to a hypothetical US that ceased all immigration and naturalization, and only allowed natural born citizenship for a hundred years or so. I do agree that many other countries do this kind of thing, and I'm not sure it's good there either.
" First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out
"I'm not sure how this is a response to my comment. If Hitler's response to the "Jewish problem" was to put the Jews into their own sovereign nation, then I don't think we would have had a Holocaust. But, yeah, I mean Goodwin's law and all.
Well, there was at least a theoretical plan by Hitler to resettle Jews to Madagascar.
OMG, you're right. Granting the native americans sovereignty over reservation land is exactly the same as enacting the Holocaust. You cannot make Hacker News up sometimes.
What is up with all the Native American casinos?
To summarize, the various Native American reservations are generally regarded as having tribal law apply to them instead of state law, which means that they are generally exempt from state regulations. If states don't permit gambling within their borders, a reservation providing the gambling instead tends to be an easy way for the reservation to make money, since they have no nearby casinos to compete with.
I honestly cannot see how one can support the electoral college and not support that the Cherokee get their special representation in Congress as well.
At least, if the argument for the electoral college used is the oft repeated ”people from the more populous states would trample over the less populous states”. Why are people from sparsely populated states a minority that has to be treated like a special snowflake, lest their rights be violated by the more populous ones, but minorities like Native Americans who have suffered centuries of oppression are not? Especially when you can move from one state to another but you cannot stop being Native American.
My suggestion is enough out of the box that many people will think I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not. This is a great idea. I think we should give out House seats to other groups who have been historically disadvantaged. Maybe we could have a few House members that only blacks get to vote for. It might be harder to identify LGBT people, but they could get one too as far as I'm concerned. It could be time limited, like maybe for 50 years or something. But it could fit under the reparations umbrella in a way that might be more tasteful to voters than just cutting a check to people.
In “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress,” one of the main characters tries to slow down the process of writing a constitution by giving the delegates too many choices. He starts by disparaging the most normal way of giving out representatives, with a statement along the lines of “surely where a man lives is the least interesting thing about him.” He then suggests, for instance, that trade unions be allowed to choose representatives.
I don’t think it’s actually workable, but I have to admit that Heinlein has a point: if you ask me to say something about myself, I never start with “I live in X neighborhood.” Why is my House district based on where I live instead of something more relevant?
The answer, of course, is that geographic representation is easy to understand and administer. But it also influences the kind of proposals my representative is willing to support or oppose. There are plenty of issues that I care about but my neighbors don’t, and my representative has no incentive to take a stand on those things.
You kind of get this "for free" with some forms of proportional representation. If any group (geographic, ethnic, religious, whatever) feels unrepresented, there is an opportunity for a party to win seats representing that group's interests.
what you suggest is probably close to the party based voting/elections/representation in Europe countries. Whenever there is a significant interest group they could/would form a party, like Pirate Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party_(Sweden) or Green Party for example while the majority of people is just covered by the typical couple of the Pepsi/Coca parties.
Yes please! Open one up for us Catholics, and another one for us minority Catholics who face double discrimination! And one for the Muslims too!
This could conceivably be done by creating a notion of special-interest delegates. The groups they represent could register, be voted on by the people (general election). If they received a sufficient vote (10-20%?) then they'd exist for some period of time (10-20 years?). People could then register with the special-interest groups of their choice (perhaps a limited number, with a minimum period of membership to avoid people attempting to spoil elections, they'd have to choose to join groups they cared about or groups they wished to spoil, but have a hard time doing both). Delegates would be nominated by various participants within the special-interest group. Consider that, a labor delegate, could be nominated by various unions, as an example. Or in your Catholic example, the Knights of Columbus and the Franciscan Order.
Delegates would be a sort of elected lobbyist, but instead of operating behind closed doors (so much), they'd have to layout their position in campaigns before being elected to such a position.
I'm not sure this'd be a good idea overall, it has a lot of downsides that I don't have time to describe as I'm about to head out the door. But there's some merit to the concept.
Oh if it wasn't clear, I was being facetious. This is an awful idea. All the groups mentioned above already have a legal, constitutional right to redress the government, being groups composed of individual citizens. Lobbyists, paid or not, elected or not, do not deserve floor time in Congress. They currently do not enjoy this privilege, thank goodness.
Oh, they have those in Europe, they are called "political parties". Some countries have lots of different parties, like "Pirate Party", for example.
Generally you can have a political party for any which cause you want, and then vote for the candidate that the party has nominated.
Don't forget left-handed people!