Imagine the possible legal implications!

[Frederick]

Well, there are those pesky treaties that our Government signed with the tribes. Ones that said this land is yours as long as the sun shines and grasses grow.
The tribes used those signed treaties to gain sovereignty into what they are now. I live on the Osage Rez and am already subject to the tribal rules and regulations even though I don't claim any Native heritage with the Osage tribe.

Treaties are agreements, they're only good as long as both parties agree to them.
If we're going by pesky treaties, most of those were signed under dubious circumstances and in many cases the opposite parties weren't exactly the appropriate authorities representing all the natives subject to the conditions therein. In other words, most the treaties we wrote with the Native Americans aren't legitimate anyway.

This is the United States. Not the Iroqois Confederacy, Osage, Cherokee or whatever. We are one nation, one people and we all follow the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States. i recognize no other legitimate authority, because there isn't any.

 

[TwoForFlinching]

Imagine the casino boom though. Tribes could take the 'top employer' title away from Walmart.

 

[dennishoddy]

Treaties are agreements, they're only good as long as both parties agree to them.
If we're going by pesky treaties, most of those were signed under dubious circumstances and in many cases the opposite parties weren't exactly the appropriate authorities representing all the natives subject to the conditions therein. In other words, most the treaties we wrote with the Native Americans aren't legitimate anyway.

This is the United States. Not the Iroqois Confederacy, Osage, Cherokee or whatever. We are one nation, one people and we all follow the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States. i recognize no other legitimate authority, because there isn't any.

The Supreme Court does not agree with your thinking.

 

[dennishoddy]

Imagine the casino boom though. Tribes could take the 'top employer' title away from Walmart.

They pay better and have better benefits.

 

[Frederick]

The Supreme Court does not agree with your thinking.

the supreme court has a tendency to be wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...ould-be/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9cf8867c8f22

is this what we want? Half of Oklahoma being owned by Native Americans? Why not return all land east of the Appalachian mountains? Maybe give them back Georgia and Illinois, too.

 

[dennishoddy]

the supreme court has a tendency to be wrong.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...ould-be/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9cf8867c8f22

is this what we want? Half of Oklahoma being owned by Native Americans? Why not return all land east of the Appalachian mountains? Maybe give them back Georgia and Illinois, too.

I think Maine is also in question.

Edit: You need to read the "Killers of the Flower Moon" to see why white people own most of the surface ground in Osage County Oklahoma.
The FBI got its start pretty much in this fiasco.

 

[Dave70968]

Treaties are agreements, they're only good as long as both parties agree to them.

I think you've fundamentally misunderstood the effect of treaties upon government.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
​

Constitution of the United States of America, Article VI, clause 2.

If we're going by pesky treaties, most of those were signed under dubious circumstances and in many cases the opposite parties weren't exactly the appropriate authorities representing all the natives subject to the conditions therein. In other words, most the treaties we wrote with the Native Americans aren't legitimate anyway.

So...the United States negotiated in bad faith, and now wants to use its own bad faith as grounds to invalidate its agreement? Yeah, law doesn't work that way, nor should it. You don't get to use your own prior bad acts to excuse you from your obligations. The consequences of that would be phenomenally bad; it would provide an inherent incentive to always negotiate in bad faith, and make the entire concept of negotiation an effective nullity.

This is the United States. Not the Iroqois Confederacy, Osage, Cherokee or whatever. We are one nation, one people and we all follow the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States. i recognize no other legitimate authority, because there isn't any.

Good. Go read it. Pay close attention to Article VI, quoted in pertinent part above.

is this what we want? Half of Oklahoma being owned by Native Americans? Why not return all land east of the Appalachian mountains? Maybe give them back Georgia and Illinois, too.

So, your approach to law is to do "what we want," not what the law says? Why even have laws if that's the philosophy? That sounds remarkably like an absolute monarchy (dictatorship, oligarchy, whatever the ruling power structure looks like), with no limits to its authority.

Forgive me if I can't get behind that idea.

 

[Frederick]

I think Maine is also in question.

The very foundation of the United States unfortunately lies atop what amounts to the historical displacement and unfortunately in some cases, genocide of the native Americans. This is a situation we need to address as a nation to remedy the historical tragedy involved.

but the solution does not lie in giving native americans(who constitute 2% of the U.S. population) back land they haven't had sovereignty over for hundreds of years. I mean, while we're at it, we did steal half of Mexico.

What about the vast majority of Oklahomans? We live here just as much as the Native Americans do. How we got here is not important, we're here now. this is our home. I don't suggest we should go to where Native Americans are and take their homes from them, but we're just as much American as the Native Americans are. I was born here, long after the tragedies of the 18th and 19th century. My family has been here for hundreds of years. To give the Native Americans sovereignty over this territory would in effect dispossess the majority of Oklahomans of their sovereignty, many of whom were born here. the only real legitimate government in our country is that which is established with the consent of the governed. the Native American government, by virtue of the character and nature of its structure, would not have that consent. You would have to basically deport 94% of Oklahoma, or subject 94% of Oklahoma to the laws of 6% of its population.

The rule of law is important, but we have to ask, who makes the law, and what makes them legitimate? The legitimacy of all government, when so constituted, comes from the consent of the governed. What rights will those who reside in newly ceded Native American territory to have a voice in the Native American government?

 

[dennishoddy]

The very foundation of the United States unfortunately lies atop what amounts to the historical displacement and unfortunately in some cases, genocide of the native Americans. This is a situation we need to address as a nation to remedy the historical tragedy involved.

but the solution does not lie in giving native americans(who constitute 2% of the U.S. population) back land they haven't had sovereignty over for hundreds of years. I mean, while we're at it, we did steal half of Mexico.

What about the vast majority of Oklahomans? We live here just as much as the Native Americans do. How we got here is not important, we're here now. this is our home. I don't suggest we should go to where Native Americans are and take their homes from them, but we're just as much American as the Native Americans are. I was born here, long after the tragedies of the 18th and 19th century. My family has been here for hundreds of years. I was born here. To give the Native Americans sovereignty over this territory would in effect dispossess the majority of Oklahomans of their sovereignty, many of whom were born here. the only real legitimate government in our country is that which is established with the consent of the governed. the Native American government, by virtue of the character and nature of its structure, would not have that consent. You would have to basically deport 94% of Oklahoma, or subject 94% of Oklahoma to the laws of 6% of its population.

The rule of law is important, but we have to ask, who makes the law, and what makes them legitimate? The legitimacy of all government, when so constituted, comes from the consent of the governed. What rights will those who reside in newly ceded Native American territory to have a voice in the Native American government?

I'm betting we find out before long, and we may not like the outcome, others will.

 

[Dave70968]

but the solution does not lie in giving native americans(who constitute 2% of the U.S. population) back land they haven't had sovereignty over for hundreds of years. I mean, while we're at it, we did steal half of Mexico.

With regard to Mexico, we treated it as outright conquest, and made no bones about it. With regard to the Indians, we treated them as sovereign nations, and voluntarily subjected ourselves to our own laws. Big difference there.

What about the vast majority of Oklahomans? We live here just as much as the Native Americans do. How we got here is not important, we're here now. this is our home. I don't suggest we should go to where Native Americans are and take their homes from them, but we're just as much American as the Native Americans are. I was born here, long after the tragedies of the 18th and 19th century. My family has been here for hundreds of years. I was born here. To give the Native Americans sovereignty over this territory would in effect dispossess the majority of Oklahomans of their sovereignty, many of whom were born here. the only real legitimate government in our country is that which is established with the consent of the governed. the Native American government, by virtue of the character and nature of its structure, would not have that consent. You would have to basically deport 94% of Oklahoma, or subject 94% of Oklahoma to the laws of 6% of its population.

...and that government, established with the consent of the governed, entered into a treaty with another group it considered a sovereign nation. You propose to utterly abdicate that treaty; to effectively change the character to that of conquest.

A lot of sovereign nations would consider such a thing--abdicating a treaty and unilaterally declaring sovereignty over their people--to be an act of war.

The rule of law is important, but we have to ask, who makes the law, and what makes them legitimate? The legitimacy of all government, when so constituted, comes from the consent of the governed. What rights will those who reside in newly ceded Native American territory to have a voice in the Native American government?

Congress makes the law. And, as the article pointed out, it did, both in statute and in ratifying a treaty. You're proposing to ignore those laws and treaties.

I don't dispute that it'll make a helluva mess of things to rule in favor of the appellant, but, well, principles are what you do even when the outcome would be inconvenient.