Lakota Indians Announce Secession from United States

Guru-Seo if you care about the Indians that much,why don't you give up "their land" and move back to your ancestral home?

 

Not quite as clear as that, Bogart. The law has been all over the map. Under Roosevelt, for instance, the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 984, returned to an earlier idea that, within the limited purview of tribal power and authority, "sovereignty" resided as an inherent attribute within the tribe, and not prescribed powers rendered to the tribe by congressional, statutory authority (which could later be retracted, as all statutes can). It's been a juridical mess since, with courts relying on variously construed definitions of "sovereignty." Probably the most glaring is the 1997 Supreme Court case, Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe, No. 94-1474, which says, in part:

This decision affirmed an earlier decision of the Court along the same lines. In other words, Indian tribes are to be considered foreign nations within the context of federal law, and therefore are barred from suing states who enjoy immunity under Amendment 11 of the constitution:

You really can't have it both ways:

and

-cannot exist in the same legal universe. The former says the Indian tribes are not sovereign entities, with whom the United States may enter into treaty. The latter says the precise reverse, and as sovereign nations, the tribe is specifically barred from suing an individual State within the U.S.

(evidence, by the way, for the credence to what Means and this latest volley towards independence is saying - laws have been abrogated, treaties broken, even in contradictory ways - anything, so long as the tribe gets screwed, and is not given redress, to put it bluntly).

 

We? I had nothing to do with that....

The succession thing is nothing more than a show of solidarity, a stance if you will.. It's more symbolic than anything. I doubt much will come of it.

Anyway, when my Indian brothers succeed, I want my share of that casino money and the right to spear fish too!!!

Part Cherokee btw...

 

It seems from Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution that the Indians were sovereign. But did not necessarly have national sovereignity as foreign Nations, several States, and the Indian tribes were grouped together.

 

I am not following you here.

 

Reminds me of this hilarious video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdimK1onR4o



-

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIiN2eICefk&NR=1
I think this one more clearly shows the nature of our presidents views on tribal sovereignty.

 

HAHAHAHAHAH! Yep, seems about right.

 

Another winner. At least she used more words, as such as such.

 

Say something enough, be in the public eye often enough, speak in front of people as often as some do, and you to will get tongue tied.. It's happened to me on occasion. I call it a brain fart.. It's like your thoughts just go out the window and your mind goes blank for a second... I've had it happen even when I had a prepared speech...

Public speaking is difficult enough for those of us that do it often... Answering off the cuff is even more difficult... Why do you think Hillary has all her questions planted? So she can have a good response.

The hell of it is, if they are already sovereign, why then do they need succeed? Are they not already in total control over their own laws and area?

 

BUSH is an embarrassment!! And we should all be ashamed of this fool!!! (Though I never voted for the idiot that can't even stitch a sentence together)
Kind of a pathetic excuse on your part to try to justify his ignorance and level of intellect by the frequency of his speeches.
The guy is an idiot. Pure and simple.

 

Problem is his tongue seems to be tied 9 out of 10 times no matter how often the idiot speaks!

 

It is secede not succeed. You must be a northerner, all the southerners know how to spell secede No they are not in "total" control over their own laws and their own lands, in fact their land is periodically reduced, add that to the fact that they are often required to follow laws and regulations imposed on them by the US and you have a pretty clear picture of the lack of sovereignty there. They have more sovereignty than Kentucky but less than Cuba, which is not exactly being sovereign at all. Which is one of the many reasons it is an interesting question of our dedication to independence and freedom in this country. If we can deny it to the Lakota how the hell can we profess to spread it to the middle east?
I think total control over their land and laws and perhaps a treaty that was up-to-date and legally clear and binding would be a good resolution to this. Some other political hacks out there on the blogs seem to be under the impression that a large civil settlement is the most the Lakota could hope for from any of this. A lot of others think Russel Means is talking out of his ass and doesn't have any support for the tribal leaders necessary to make this declaration possible.

 

Constitutionally the American Indians are sovereign.

In Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution conferred on Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."

Though the Indians are sovereign it isn't clear whether the Indians had national sovereignty or were subordinate to the Fedral Gov. like the States.

 

As much as I'm not a fan of this President, I agree with you, Jeremy. I'm the only guy I know that can burble off an empty volubility of words as if they were Websterian in authority.

I do think it is fairly illustrative of the actuality, however. The issue is not clear at all, and never has been.

 

Well, in all fairness, he is a horrible speaker to begin with.. He's pretty much always been that way..

Clinton on the other hand was extremely eloquent in every situation, unless you get him angry...

I've always liked the plain spoken talk myself.. I always felt like Clinton (Hillary more so) was either talking down to, or up to the public.. I did not care for the condescending tone.. Bush has this Truman way of speaking like your drinking buddy might, or the average every day American... I bet he was a hoot back in his drinking days.. I've got some video of him at a party liquored up and he is not only completely lucid, but speaks very well by comparison..

 

Seems to me that irrespective of questions of powers, the legal status as a foreign sovereignty was pretty unambiguously stated by the Supreme Court, when it said:

 

I'm actually into many different speaking styles, so long as I don't get that it is engineered, and so long as it's spoken well. It's why I am not a fan of Clinton, either, who is as calculating a bastard as there ever was. But I don't look for a drinking buddy in a President, and this is why I can't stand Daley. It's an embarrassment. It isn't "folksy" to murder the language and eschew a clear mind when making a point. It lowers the bar, rather than raises a challenge to the better part of all of us. In other words, Reagan was simple. But whatever your politics, he brilliantly conveyed his message, and it is this where I believe this President falls woefully short.

By means of comparison, I like Will Rogers; in music, as much as I love Beethoven and the Romanticists, I love Aaron Copland's Fanfare for the Common Man, which I consider is music that speaks in the Truman way you talk about. Every time I hear it, I need to stop doing what I'm doing, as it moves me profoundly.

My personal bent, too, is that language is more than utility, more than conveyance. It is an expression of self that has resonances far beyond the surface facts of the matter. But that's my thing. I suppose it's why I am drawn to Shakespeare, poetry, lyrical prose (so long as the author's hand isn't waving wildly, saying, "look at me!).

 

I agree there. There was a long tradition of dealing with the Indians as sovereign nations.

The only Indian tribe that currently looks like a nation is the Navajo with a 27,000 sq mile reservation and pop. of 300,000.