HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Republicans offer deal on...

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 06:36 PM

Republicans offer deal on American Indian courts

Source: AP

WASHINGTON Several House Republicans on Wednesday proposed legislation on Native American courts that could lay the groundwork for a compromise on the stalled Violence Against Women Act.

The legislation gives tribal courts the authority to prosecute non-Indians accused of abusing partners on tribal lands.

The bill, introduced by Reps. Darrell Issa of California, Tom Cole of Oklahoma, and six other Republicans, would also allow defendants to request that their case be moved to a federal court if they felt their constitutional rights were being violated.

The House and Senate have been trying for the past year to renew and expand the 1994 act, credited with reducing domestic violence in the country, but tribal authority over domestic violence cases has been a major point of contention.

Read more: http://www.themonitor.com/news/us_news/article_ab4421f6-7bb1-11e2-8b3f-001a4bcf6878.html

7 replies, 1821 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply Republicans offer deal on American Indian courts (Original post)
TexasTowelie Feb 2013 OP
atreides1 Feb 2013 #1
DreamGypsy Feb 2013 #2
Tom Rinaldo Feb 2013 #5
DreamGypsy Feb 2013 #7
DreamGypsy Feb 2013 #6
blkbear Feb 2013 #3
Bandit Feb 2013 #4

Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:41 PM

1. "... if they felt their constitutional rights were being violated."


In other words the Republicans basically are providing an escape clause for non-Indians, based on how they feel!!!

And if federal law enforcement doesn't have the resources to bring half of the current cases to trial, then nothing has changed, because they still won't have the resources!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:59 PM

2. Anybody have a link to the text of the bill...

...I couldn't find a reference in any of the numerous articles or at http://www.house.gov/ since the house is not in session (still).

I would like to understand the actual language behind "allow defendants to request that their case be moved to a federal court if they felt their constitutional rights were being violated".

Sounds to me like the bill is a token, but worthless, gesture. I'd like to be proven wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DreamGypsy (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:48 PM

5. I want to know what "request" actually means. Request to who?

If said person can request to the Native American Court that their trial be moved to a federal court, and that Native American Court gets to decide whether or not to honor that request based on the arguments made by the defendent etc. then I can accept this compromise If that is how it is worded it provides a good face saving opportunity for a few saner Republicans to climb down from the tree branch they have themselves out on. And though we are scoring political points with them being out there, it is important to get this legislation passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Rinaldo (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:42 PM

7. Exactly.

I 'guess' that the defendant would have to file some sort of change of venue request...but where is that adjudicated?

From Wikipedia on the 6th Amendment:

Impartiality

The Sixth Amendment requires juries to be impartial. Impartiality has been interpreted as requiring individual jurors to be unbiased. At voir dire, each side may question potential jurors to determine any bias, and challenge them if the same is found; the court determines the validity of these challenges for cause. Defendants may not challenge a conviction because a challenge for cause was denied incorrectly if they had the opportunity to use peremptory challenges.

Venire of juries

Another factor in determining the impartiality of the jury is the nature of the panel, or venire, from which the jurors are selected. Venires must represent a fair cross-section of the community; the defendant may establish that the requirement was violated by showing that the allegedly excluded group is a "distinctive" one in the community, that the representation of such a group in venires is unreasonable and unfair in regard to the number of persons belonging to such a group, and that the under-representation is caused by a systematic exclusion in the selection process. Thus, in Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975), the Supreme Court invalidated a state law that exempted women who had not made a declaration of willingness to serve from jury service, while not doing the same for men.

Vicinage
Main article: Vicinage Clause

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution requires defendants be tried by juries and in the state in which the crime was committed. The Sixth Amendment requires the jury to be selected from a judicial districts ascertained by statute. In Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U.S. 73 (1904), the Supreme Court ruled that the place where the offense is charged to have occurred determines a trial's location. Where multiple districts are alleged to have been locations of the crime, any of them may be chosen for the trial. In cases of offenses not committed in any state (for example, offenses committed at sea), the place of trial may be determined by the Congress
.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DreamGypsy (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:32 PM

6. The text of the bill (HR780) is not yet available, but will appear here...

...at some point: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr780

The bill number and title is: H.R. 780: To authorize Indian tribes to exercise jurisdiction over crimes of domestic violence that occur in the Indian country of that tribe.

It was introduced and assigned to committee on February 15, 2013.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:45 PM

3. Escape Clause

Oh Noooo, we already have a black man in our white house, now they want brown people to prosecute our white rapists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blkbear (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:01 PM

4. Red people...get your colors right...

But yes I think you are spot on. It is all racial...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread