U. S. cannot nullify treaties with Indians
November 14, 2009, 8:07 AM / 29 comments
Story tools:
It is sad to see so many readers responding to the issues of tax collection on reservation sales, without ever taking the time to examine or understand the realities of sovereignty or treaty rights.
The idea that the government can just rewrite treaties to bring anything more into line with non-Indian viewpoints neglects the very concept of what a treaty is —an agreement between two or more sovereign nations. It cannot be nullified or abdicated by one party without the consent of the others.
The idea that the state can refuse passage on public highways to Indian people because they claim their U. S. government acknowledged sovereignty is foolish and dangerous. American Indian people in this country have been guaranteed the rights of free passage, they traded away the rights to a whole lot of land in return for these rights.
Some readers claim to have read most of the treaties and found nothing of the sort within them. Apparently, they have only read as far as they need to form their unfinished opinions. I suggest they reread the whole of the treaties and then ask themselves where they gained the right to the very land they stand upon while they rail away at people who gave them the right, through these same treaties, to stand there in the first place.
Mark H. Vosburgh
Albion
http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/e...ry/861226.html
I have mixed feelings on this. I believe if our elected officials learned to manage our money we would not be in this financial mess right now.. Our legislators are always in the spending mode and then punish us all by raising fees , taxes and starting programs that never end for placing patronage.
Kiss someone that's different. It helps.
Lets get the facts first, then go for the jugular!!
It's all transparent, just read between the lines..
and how did the Iroquios get "their land"?
They stole it from the Huron, Neutrals, Susquehannock, Tionontati, and Erie.
So they sold us land they didn't have a right to own - that's called fraud ab initio.
http://tolatsga.org/iro.html
In the United States, much of the Iroquois homeland was surrendered to New York land speculators in a series of treaties following the Revolutionary War. Despite this, most Seneca, Tuscarora, and Onondaga avoided removal during the 1830s and have remained in New York. There are also sizeable groups of Mohawk, Oneida, Cayuga, and Caughnawaga still in the state.
Kiss someone that's different. It helps.
Lets get the facts first, then go for the jugular!!
It's all transparent, just read between the lines..
Actually, the U.S. can nullify treaties it is called abrogation. Since the U.S. stopped entering into treaties with the Indians in 1871 any subsequent act of Congress abrogates any prior inconsistent provision of any treaty.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
The idea that the government can just rewrite treaties to bring anything more into line with non-Indian viewpoints neglects the very concept of what a treaty is —an agreement between two or more sovereign nations. It cannot be nullified or abdicated by one party without the consent of the others.
I think DTWarren is correct - moreover, under the treties that were enterted into before 1871, the indian nations agreed to be subject to the jurisdiction and laws of the United States.
Cherokee Nation v. the State of Georgia, US Supreme Court1831:
"Though the Indians are acknowledged to have an unquestionable, and, heretofore, unquestioned right to the lands they occupy, until that right shall be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our government; yet it may well be doubted whether those tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the United States can, with strict accuracy, be denominated foreign nations. They may, more correctly be denominated domestic dependent nations. They occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their will, which must take effect in point of possession when their right of possession ceases. Meanwhile, they are in a state of pupilage. Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian."
As American Citizens the Indians are represented by Congress so there is, at least in the case of Indians, consent from their elected representatives. However, even in the absence of this treaty rights can be abrogated at the will of Congress. Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665, 671, 56 L. Ed. 941, 32 S. Ct. 565 (1912). An Act of Congress may supersede a treaty. Thomas v. Gay, 169 U.S. 264, 271, 42 L. Ed. 740, 18 S. Ct. 340 (1898); The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. 616, 621, 20 L. Ed. 227 (1870). Generally, in the case of a conflict between an Act of Congress and a treaty, the one last in date must prevail to the extent they are inconsistent. Hijo v. United States, 194 U.S. 315, 324, 48 L. Ed. 994, 24 S. Ct. 727 (1904).
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
The biggest issue is soon to be facing us REPARATIONS.If the African American "slaves" get theirs LOOK OUT.
I guess they just volunteeer to give up their rights that they had for thousands of years.
A great example is when they took Tuscarora Indian's territory to build Robert Moses. Now ,the New York Power Authority answers to no one and blows all of the revenues it gets.
You think they could of at least put in more modern turbines with our loot so we could produce more electricity.
Kiss someone that's different. It helps.
Lets get the facts first, then go for the jugular!!
It's all transparent, just read between the lines..
If NY could run a fiscally solvent state then none of this conversation would be necessary.
Sadly they can't and even after the hell out of us they still can't close a budget gap.
It's called reduced spending....try it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)