NationStates

Loben The 2nd wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:You do know what nation this is right?

Cherokee.

And you know they were forced off their lands right? And put on a death march?

What exactly is the point of a non-voting member of Congress?

Loben The 2nd wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:You do know what nation this is right?

Cherokee.

Amazing that a nation that obsesses over the precise details of its ancestry has this thing where there is literally no difference between the Lenape and the Cherokee.

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Loben The 2nd wrote:
Cherokee.

And you know they were forced off their lands right? And put on a death march?

Death march or war, the end result would be been the same

Munkcestrian Republic wrote:

Loben The 2nd wrote:
Cherokee.

Amazing that a nation that obsesses over the precise details of its ancestry has this thing where there is literally no difference between the Lenape and the Cherokee.

What?

Costa Fierro wrote:What exactly is the point of a non-voting member of Congress?

DNC PR.

Costa Fierro wrote:What exactly is the point of a non-voting member of Congress?

Basically it’s so that you can shout really loud at them in your interests
DC used to be the same way, it’s dumb but better than nothing

Loben The 2nd wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:And you know they were forced off their lands right? And put on a death march?

Death march or war, the end result would be been the same

Genocide is bad. Neither is actually textbook racist comments

Loben The 2nd wrote:

Munkcestrian Republic wrote:Amazing that a nation that obsesses over the precise details of its ancestry has this thing where there is literally no difference between the Lenape and the Cherokee.

What?

Manhattan was sold by the Lenape, a people in New York. Meaning they aren’t the Cherokee

Internationalist Bastard wrote:

Loben The 2nd wrote:
What?

Manhattan was sold by the Lenape, a people in New York. Meaning they aren’t the Cherokee

"sold" is an, er, inaccurate word given the circumstances.

And the people who actually "sold" it didn't even have control over the entire island, so.

Well, this is most definitely wonderful news. I hope the other First Nations in the US do the same, they deserve it after all, imo.

Munkcestrian Republic wrote:

Internationalist Bastard wrote:Manhattan was sold by the Lenape, a people in New York. Meaning they aren’t the Cherokee

"sold" is an, er, inaccurate word given the circumstances.

And the people who actually "sold" it didn't even have control over the entire island, so.

My understanding, which is limited I’ll admit, was that almost nobody lived on it and then some random tribe said it Dutch for a shit ton of trade goods

Costa Fierro wrote:What exactly is the point of a non-voting member of Congress?

To represent their constituency by, you know, talking about their situation and needs and interests and what have you.

Ifreann wrote:

Costa Fierro wrote:What exactly is the point of a non-voting member of Congress?

To represent their constituency by, you know, talking about their situation and needs and interests and what have you.

But what good is representation if they can't actually vote?

North German Realm wrote:

Ifreann wrote:To represent their constituency by, you know, talking about their situation and needs and interests and what have you.

But what good is representation if they can't actually vote?

Those things I just said.

Ifreann wrote:

North German Realm wrote:But what good is representation if they can't actually vote?

Those things I just said.

I didn't ask what it is good for. I asked what's literally the use. Talking about their situations, needs, et al, means jack shit when they don't even have a vote among the many where legislature is concerned. It's nothing but a non-binding PR stunt.

North German Realm wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Those things I just said.

I didn't ask what it is good for. I asked what's literally the use. Talking about their situations, needs, et al, means jack shit when they don't even have a vote among the many where legislature is concerned. It's nothing but a non-binding PR stunt.

I presume you feel the same way about calls to contact your members of Congress about some issue or other. What is the value of telling the government what problems you face and what you need to solve them if you don't then get to vote in the legislature?

Why do the Native American Nations need specific delegates to Congress? Aren't they eligible to vote in regular Congressional elections? Why does being a member of a particular ethnicity entitle you to special protections or provisions in democratic elections?

Purgatio wrote:Why do the Native American Nations need specific delegates to Congress?

Because the US government signed treaties saying so while conquering them.

Ifreann wrote:

Purgatio wrote:Why do the Native American Nations need specific delegates to Congress?

Because the US government signed treaties saying so while conquering them.

The Native American Nations are not States in the Westphalian sense, hence any treaties with them do not bind the US State in the international legal order.

Purgatio wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Because the US government signed treaties saying so while conquering them.

The Native American Nations are not States in the Westphalian sense, hence any treaties with them do not bind the US State in the international legal order.

Per the US Constitution, treaties to which the United States is party shall, along with the Constitution itself and laws made pursuant to the Constitution, be the supreme law of the land. International legal order doesn't really come into it, America's own laws require it to abide by treaties.

Ifreann wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
The Native American Nations are not States in the Westphalian sense, hence any treaties with them do not bind the US State in the international legal order.

Per the US Constitution, treaties to which the United States is party shall, along with the Constitution itself and laws made pursuant to the Constitution, be the supreme law of the land. International legal order doesn't really come into it, America's own laws require it to abide by treaties.

If you read the dicta of Missouri v. Holland carefully, in the section where Associate Justice Holmes goes to the question of the correct interpretation of the Treaty Clause, it is clear from his reasoning that he and the Supreme Court view the Treaty Clause as essentially holding the same meaning as a treaty in the international legal sense (ie between States).

Otherwise, any contract signed by the US government is a treaty. Every contract signed with a federal contractor is a 'treaty'. This obviously isn't true. A 'treaty' is a binding contract between States, and the different Native American tribes and nations are not States and lack the legal competence to enter into international treaties.

North German Realm wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Those things I just said.

I didn't ask what it is good for. I asked what's literally the use. Talking about their situations, needs, et al, means jack shit when they don't even have a vote among the many where legislature is concerned. It's nothing but a non-binding PR stunt.

Quite literally a PR stunt for Puerto Rico
but the point in the cases of Samoa and Guam is that the delegate gets close to the decision makers and is allowed to join committees and speak in congress. They get to have a chance to influence the members that do have voting power - its not the ideal situation but it is a good opportunity

Purgatio wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Per the US Constitution, treaties to which the United States is party shall, along with the Constitution itself and laws made pursuant to the Constitution, be the supreme law of the land. International legal order doesn't really come into it, America's own laws require it to abide by treaties.

If you read the dicta of Missouri v. Holland carefully, in the section where Associate Justice Holmes goes to the question of the correct interpretation of the Treaty Clause, it is clear from his reasoning that he and the Supreme Court view the Treaty Clause as essentially holding the same meaning as a treaty in the international legal sense (ie between States).

Otherwise, any contract signed by the US government is a treaty. Every contract signed with a federal contractor is a 'treaty'. This obviously isn't true. A 'treaty' is a binding contract between States, and the different Native American tribes and nations are not States and lack the legal competence to enter into international treaties.

Except it’s long been a part of Constitutional Law that the tribes have a “limited sovereignty.” One of the parts of said sovereignty include the ability to make treaties with the United States.

Thermodolia wrote:Scrap the treaties and turn them into states. The people on these reservations shouldn’t be living in limbo land

Strongly disagree. It's not their country and they don't necessarily want to be a part of it.