Tsalagi Nation Sends First Congressional Delegate

[Cetacea]

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.

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution states that "Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" thus determining that Indian tribes are separate from the federal government, the states, and foreign nations

This leads to the Principles that 1Tribal authority on Indian land is organic and is not granted by the states in which Indian lands are located And 2 that Congress holds a Trust relationship with the Tribes and thus a duty to protect the Tribes.

Thus Tribes hold Sovereignty in their lands distinct from the US federal government and thus can enter Treaties with Congress.

[Purgatio]

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.

That limited sovereignty doesn't include the international capacity to conclude treaties that bind the US State as a matter of international law, if the US decides not to honour these treaties that is at the US government's sole and untrammelled discretion to do so, and they should. I don't see why the US government today should be held hostage to electoral arrangements from past treaties when Native Americans can just vote in regular Congressional elections anyway

[Purgatio]

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.

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution states that "Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" thus determining that Indian tribes are separate from the federal government, the states, and foreign nations

This leads to the Principles that 1Tribal authority on Indian land is organic and is not granted by the states in which Indian lands are located And 2 that Congress holds a Trust relationship with the Tribes and thus a duty to protect the Tribes.

Thus Tribes hold Sovereignty in their lands distinct from the US federal government and thus can enter Treaties with Congress.

Fine, in which case the US government should break those treaties with the Indian Tribes because there's no logic to allowing someone to choose a special delegate to Congress because they are of a particular ethnicity, especially when they can just vote in regular Congressional elections

[Kowani]

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution states that "Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" thus determining that Indian tribes are separate from the federal government, the states, and foreign nations

This leads to the Principles that 1Tribal authority on Indian land is organic and is not granted by the states in which Indian lands are located And 2 that Congress holds a Trust relationship with the Tribes and thus a duty to protect the Tribes.

Thus Tribes hold Sovereignty in their lands distinct from the US federal government and thus can enter Treaties with Congress.

Fine, in which case the US government should break those treaties with the Indian Tribes because there's no logic to allowing someone to choose a special delegate to Congress because they are of a particular ethnicity, especially when they can just vote in regular Congressional elections

I wonder what the logic could be...It’s not like autonomous regions need representation...or the US government has a history of abusing the native Americans…noooo.

[Purgatio]

Fine, in which case the US government should break those treaties with the Indian Tribes because there's no logic to allowing someone to choose a special delegate to Congress because they are of a particular ethnicity, especially when they can just vote in regular Congressional elections

I wonder what the logic could be...It’s not like autonomous regions need representation...or the US government has a history of abusing the native Americans…noooo.

So historical wrongs justify unequal treatment based on ethnicity?

[Kowani]

I wonder what the logic could be...It’s not like autonomous regions need representation...or the US government has a history of abusing the native Americans…noooo.

So historical wrongs justify unequal treatment based on ethnicity?

So not only did you dodge my first point, that you have to jump to “muh egalitarianism” without actually understanding how the reservations work makes me think you have no idea what you’re talking about.

[North German Realm]

I wonder what the logic could be...It’s not like autonomous regions need representation...or the US government has a history of abusing the native Americans…noooo.

So historical wrongs justify unequal treatment based on ethnicity?

It's not "historical" when it's happening right now though. The abuse of Native Americans is an ongoing issue, not something that ended with the Dakota War.

[Purgatio]

So historical wrongs justify unequal treatment based on ethnicity?

So not only did you dodge my first point, that you have to jump to “muh egalitarianism” without actually understanding how the reservations work makes me think you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I know how reservations work, at present, I just disagree with them. I don't see why there's a need for the legal and jurisdictional confusions that arise from tribal sovereignty, I can't tell if you're deliberately misconstruing my argument so let me make it clear, I'm aware that Native Americans at present are covered by tribal sovereignty on reservations, but I disagree with that because I regard it as unequal legal treatment based on ethnicity. All persons in the US should be covered equally by State law within State territory, none of this reservation and tribal sovereignty nonsense.

[Purgatio]

So historical wrongs justify unequal treatment based on ethnicity?

It's not "historical" when it's happening right now though. The abuse of Native Americans is an ongoing issue, not something that ended with the Dakota War.

Native Americans aren't abused or oppressed, pointing to different socioeconomic outcomes and other outcomes doesn't prove oppression or discrimination

[Kowani]

So not only did you dodge my first point, that you have to jump to “muh egalitarianism” without actually understanding how the reservations work makes me think you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I know how reservations work, at present, I just disagree with them. I don't see why there's a need for the legal and jurisdictional confusions that arise from tribal sovereignty, I can't tell if you're deliberately misconstruing my argument so let me make it clear, I'm aware that Native Americans at present are covered by tribal sovereignty on reservations, but I disagree with that because I regard it as unequal legal treatment based on ethnicity. All persons in the US should be covered equally by State law within State territory, none of this reservation and tribal sovereignty nonsense.

“Unequal legal treatment based on ethnicity.”
Yeah, we’re done here.

[Ifreann]

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.

When was the court case voiding the treaties mentioned in the OP?

[Purgatio]

I know how reservations work, at present, I just disagree with them. I don't see why there's a need for the legal and jurisdictional confusions that arise from tribal sovereignty, I can't tell if you're deliberately misconstruing my argument so let me make it clear, I'm aware that Native Americans at present are covered by tribal sovereignty on reservations, but I disagree with that because I regard it as unequal legal treatment based on ethnicity. All persons in the US should be covered equally by State law within State territory, none of this reservation and tribal sovereignty nonsense.

“Unequal legal treatment based on ethnicity.”
Yeah, we’re done here.

You know if you disagree with that conclusion, you could respond, right? With facts and evidence? Throwing out a random one-liner just seems immature and childish.

[Seangoli]

"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

Manhattan was a communal hunting ground that several tribes more or less agreed not to settle, and had joint ownership of. Equally, nowhere in the records does it say Manhattan was bought with beads. It was traded for with trade goods, about $1k worth in the modern day, which was actually a lot of goods when compared to other comprable trade items.

Even with that, the notion they were selling it js dubioys. Not because Natives didn't have have a concept of ownership amd were duped (which is stupid to believe, as Natives had both very strong notions of personal and communal ownership of property), or that they coule "give" land away (which was most certainly a well known concept as the tribes would cede or conquer lands quite often); rather, its probable that the tribe that "traded" Manhattan was rather under the impression that they were leasing the rights to use the land to the Dutch under their part of the claim. The reason they couldn't and didn't feel they could sell it wasn't because they didn't think that owning land was impossible, as this is a fanciful modern romanticism. Rather, they weren't the sole owners of that specific land, and had no right to sell it in the first place, which they understood fully. They likely just were expecting a sort of lease or rental type agreement, wherein they allow the Dutch to utlize their claim to Manhattan in exchange for goods that were of significant value to them (steel and iron goods, cloth and clothing, tools, etc).

[Kowani]

“Unequal legal treatment based on ethnicity.”
Yeah, we’re done here.

You know if you disagree with that conclusion, you could respond, right? With facts and evidence? Throwing out a random one-liner just seems immature and childish.

Very well. The purpose of the law is not egalitarianism for egalitarianism’s sake. That is meaningless. Legal egalitarianism is only useful when all the players start on a level playing field. But they don’t.

[Purgatio]

You know if you disagree with that conclusion, you could respond, right? With facts and evidence? Throwing out a random one-liner just seems immature and childish.

Very well. The purpose of the law is not egalitarianism for egalitarianism’s sake. That is meaningless. Legal egalitarianism is only useful when all the players start on a level playing field. But they don’t.

The only basis for tribal sovereignty is some accident of history and events of the past, but that was then, I don't see how it benefits even Native Americans to have separate reservations and tribal law and tribal sovereignty governing those territories, why not just have a system where State jurisdiction equally governs all persons and conduct within the State regardless of their ethnic heritage? How could that possibly be detrimental to Native Americans to be treated equally in the eyes of the law?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Very well. The purpose of the law is not egalitarianism for egalitarianism’s sake. That is meaningless. Legal egalitarianism is only useful when all the players start on a level playing field. But they don’t.

The only basis for tribal sovereignty is some accident of history and events of the past, but that was then, I don't see how it benefits even Native Americans to have separate reservations and tribal law and tribal sovereignty governing those territories, why not just have a system where State jurisdiction equally governs all persons and conduct within the State regardless of their ethnic heritage? How could that possibly be detrimental to Native Americans to be treated equally in the eyes of the law?

The end of the reservations means that they cease to exist.

[Purgatio]

The only basis for tribal sovereignty is some accident of history and events of the past, but that was then, I don't see how it benefits even Native Americans to have separate reservations and tribal law and tribal sovereignty governing those territories, why not just have a system where State jurisdiction equally governs all persons and conduct within the State regardless of their ethnic heritage? How could that possibly be detrimental to Native Americans to be treated equally in the eyes of the law?

The end of the reservations means that they cease to exist.

And why's that bad? Native Americans will just be governed by ordinary law, they'd have the same standing, the same rights and obligations, as everyone else in the State governed by the same law.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The end of the reservations means that they cease to exist.

And why's that bad? Native Americans will just be governed by ordinary law, they'd have the same standing, the same rights and obligations, as everyone else in the State governed by the same law.

You don't see why Native Americans don't want their culture to die out against their will?

Do recall that they didn't choose to be a part of this country.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

Why does being a member of a particular ethnicity entitle you to special protections or provisions in democratic elections?

Turn every reservation into a state. It would solve that.

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.

It is their country.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

And why's that bad? Native Americans will just be governed by ordinary law, they'd have the same standing, the same rights and obligations, as everyone else in the State governed by the same law.

Do recall that they didn't choose to be a part of this country.

Yes, your country forced them to be part of your country.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Do recall that they didn't choose to be a part of this country.

Yes, your country forced them to be part of your country.

Yes, that is my point, they should remain quasi-independent so that this country will not destroy them.

[Munkcestrian Republic]

Yes, your country forced them to be part of your country.

Yes, that is my point, they should remain quasi-independent so that this country will not destroy them.

I think 326 new states would have enough power to stop any such thing happening.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yes, that is my point, they should remain quasi-independent so that this country will not destroy them.

I think 326 new states would have enough power to stop any such thing happening.

Most of the reservations don't have the population to become states, and states are required to follow all federal law, so people would just move in and the natives would be assimilated, which is what happened everywhere else. The Natives need the reservations to protect their existence.

[Loben The 2nd]

I think 326 new states would have enough power to stop any such thing happening.

Most of the reservations don't have the population to become states, and states are required to follow all federal law, so people would just move in and the natives would be assimilated, which is what happened everywhere else. The Natives need the reservations to protect their existence.

They are slowly dying off irc.

[Shrillland]

The end of the reservations means that they cease to exist.

And why's that bad? Native Americans will just be governed by ordinary law, they'd have the same standing, the same rights and obligations, as everyone else in the State governed by the same law.

We already tried that at the start of the last century. Allotment proved to be a disaster.

And why shouldn't we hold the government to account and force them to respect the treaties? They forced us to sign the damn things, and in this case, they include the right to congressional representation.