I posted this in a similar thread:
I find the use of the name "Geronimo" for the operation offensive the same way I would find the name "Tillman" or some other American hero or religious figure for the same operation offensive.
You appear to not be that familar with American Indians. Genocide occurred. Indian culture is in recovery and is by Federal policy that reflects the immorality of the past. One such law is the Native American Religious Freedom Act.
About the Constitution and Tribes from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_... Nation to Nation: Tribes and the Federal GovernmentWhen the United States government formed, it replaced the British government as the other sovereignty coexisting in America with the American Indians.<10> The U.S. constitution specifically mentions American Indians three times. Article I, section 2, clause 3 and the fourteenth amendment section 2 address the handling of "Indians not taxed" in the apportionment of the seats of the House of Representatives according to population and in so doing suggest that Indians need not be taxed. In Article I section 8, clause 3, Congress is empowered to “regulate commerce with foreign nations…states…and with the Indian tribes.” Technically, Congress has no more power over Indian nations than it does over states and general congressional laws are not applicable to them. In the 1970s Native American self-determination replaced Indian termination policy as the official United States policy towards Native Americans.<11> Self-determination promoted the ability of tribes to self-govern and make decisions concerning their people. It has been argued that American Indian matters should be handled through the United States Secretary of State, the official responsible for foreign policy. However, in dealing with Indian policy, a separate department, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has been in place since 1824.
At the foundation of the constitutional status of tribes is the idea that tribes have an inherent right to govern themselves—the power is not delegated by congressional acts. Congress can, however, limit tribal sovereignty. Unless a treaty or federal statute removes a power, however, the tribe is assumed to possess it.<12> Current federal policy in the United States recognizes this sovereignty and stresses the government-to-government relations between Washington, D.C. and the American Indian tribes.<13> However, most Indian land is held in trust by the United States,<14> and federal law still regulates the political and economic rights of tribal governments. Tribal jurisdiction over persons and things within tribal borders are often at issue. While tribal criminal jurisdiction over Indians is reasonably well settled, Tribes are still striving to achieve criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian persons who commit crimes in Indian Country. This is mostly due to the Supreme Court's ruling in 1978 in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe that tribes lack the inherent authority to arrest, try and convict non-Indians who commit crimes on their lands (see below for additional discussion on this point.) The Oliphant decision remains "controversial because it signaled that project of imperialism is alive and well in Indian Country..."<15>
Tribal State Relations: Sovereign within a Sovereign Another dispute over American Indian government is its sovereignty versus that of the states. The federal U.S. government has always been the government that makes treaties with Indian tribes - not the states. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that “Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”.<16> This determined that Indian tribes were separate from the federal or state governments and that the states did not have power to commerce with the tribes, much less regulate them. The states and tribal nations have clashed over many issues such as Indian gaming, fishing, and hunting. American Indians believed that they had treaties between their ancestors and the United States government, protecting their right to fish, while non-Indians believed the states were responsible for regulating commercial and sports fishing.<17> In the case Menominee Tribe v. United States in 1968, it was ruled that “the establishment of a reservation by treaty, statute or agreement includes an implied right of Indians to hunt and fish on that reservation free of regulation by the state”.<18> States have tried to extend their power over the tribes in many other instances, but federal government ruling has continuously ruled in favor of tribal sovereignty. A seminal court case was Worchester v. Georgia. Chief Justice Marshall found that “England had treated the tribes as sovereign and negotiated treaties of alliance with them. The United States followed suit, thus continuing the practice of recognizing tribal sovereignty. When the United States assumed the role of protector of the tribes, it neither denied nor destroyed their sovereignty.”<19> As determined in the Supreme Court case United States v. Nice (1916),<20> U.S. citizens are subject to all U.S. laws even if also they have tribal citizenship.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
