|
Post by blackcrowheart on Oct 3, 2007 13:56:54 GMT -5
Cherokee Nation wrong on Freedmen Tuesday, June 5, 2007
"Those who have been following this controversy know it arose because of a recent Cherokee Nation vote to divest freedmen, the descendants of African Americans who had been made citizens of the tribe, of their membership in the tribe. So the issue of Cherokee citizenship complicates the issue of constitutional independence. But simply put, it was wrong for Cherokees to remove freedmen from the tribe, and the move to void the BIA’s approval authority is a move to legitimize that wrong. The federal government has the responsibility to see that U.S. citizens are treated fairly and equally within all entities in its jurisdiction. The Cherokee freedmen issue is a race issue, despite what some will say, and so the BIA has a responsibility to intervene."
|
|
|
Post by Okwes on Dec 28, 2007 12:14:20 GMT -5
UKB Chief: Cherokee Nation can't break treaty Wednesday, June 20, 2007 Filed Under: Opinion
The following is the opinion of George Wickliffe, the chief of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Federally-recognized tribal governments are in a better position with the United States than ever before. And because of that, I am concerned that the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma is trying to break a treaty signed in 1866 with the original Cherokees. It is dangerous to try and break a treaty – it opens doors for the US Congress to abolish their government to government relationship with the tribes.
A treaty is a document as powerful as the US Constitution. In Article VI of the US Constitution, it says: “This constitution, and Laws of the United States which shall be made Pursuant thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution for Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Even the entry-level student of Indian Law understands that the only way a Treaty can be changed is through another Treaty, or an Act of Congress. Since the United States no longer makes Treaties with Native Americans, Congressional Action is the only method left.
One of the government functions that was taken away from the Cherokee Nation by the Curtis Act was the right for the tribal citizens to vote for their own leadership. This right was restored, however, in 1970 with the Principal Chief’s Act, made by Congress. The Department of the Interior stated in 1971 that there were conditions fundamental to the regulations for the democratic selection of a principal tribal official, “and will be considered to be essential to the approval of any proposed selection regulations.” One of the main conditions cited was “Voter qualifications for the Choctaw, Seminole, Cherokee and Creek people must be broad enough to include the enrolled Freedmen citizens of the respective nations, together with the descendants of such enrollees.”
The language used in the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, makes the treaties binding. As with other legal documents, decisions and agreements, this becomes binding to all Treaties. The Dancing Rabbit Creek treaty states: “all laws except such as from time to time may be enacted in their own National Councils, not inconsistent with the Constitution Treaties, and Laws of the United States; and except such as may, and which have been enacted by Congress, to the extent that Congress, under the Constitution are required to exercise a legislation over Indian Affairs.”
Tribes have worked hard to hold the United States to the promises made in Treaties. One thing that we Indians have always been able to stand proud and say is, “The United States has broken some treaties with us, but we have broken none.” Unfortunately, if the Smith administration succeeds in their illegal attempt to disenfranchise a class of citizens, we will never be able to say this again. All tribes in the United States will be affected, and will be put into the same category of “treaty breakers.” I fear this for all our Native Americans.
The Smith administration evidently believes itself to have more power than United States Congress by deciding to change the terms of a Treaty on their own, and eliminating citizenship and the right to vote for Freedman descendants. All Cherokees should stand together and protect their good name for the benefit of all Native Americans.
To break a treaty will affect every federally recognized tribe in the United States. Let’s leave the language that binds treaties as written because a treaty (all treaties) are BINDING for as long as “the SUN COMES up in the EAST, SETS in the WEST, the GRASS GROWS, and the WATERS FLOW” and because of this language, the U.S. Government is much less likely to BREAK ANOTHER TREATY…
BUT LET THE CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA BREAK the 1866 treaty and it could open the door for other treaties to be broken. Let’s keep our tribal governments’, governments to governments relationships with the U.S. GOVERNMENT as written, and keep all our treaties intact. This is the way we honor and protect our tribal sovereignty.
|
|
|
Post by Okwes on Jan 19, 2008 17:48:04 GMT -5
Richard Allen has sent you an Article from the Indian Country Today website.
Jasper: Disinformation campaign undermines Cherokee rights by: Suzanne Jasper © Indian Country Today November 30, 2007. All Rights Reserved
In June 2007, legislation was introduced in Congress that would undermine the collective human rights of an Indian nation, by allowing Congress to determine citizenship in an Indian nation.
California Rep. Diane Watson framed her legislation, House Bill 2824, as ''the treaty rights'' to citizenship of ''black freedmen'' vs. the sovereign right of the historically racist Cherokee Nation ''to expel their black citizens.''
Watson has portrayed her cause as ''the most significant civil rights movement of this century.'' She claimed the Cherokees ''equaled if not surpassed the most vitriolic attacks against African Americans in the once segregated South.'' Considering the condemnable history of slavery and the harm the legislation could cause Indian nations, her statements appear extreme and uninformed.
Regrettably, the press supported her claims - discrimination by lawless Indians against oppressed blacks. Good people, including respected members of Congress and national civil rights organizations, believed the story.
An intensive investigation to determine the facts has revealed that Watson re-wrote huge portions of Cherokee history to make her damaging claims. ''The past actions of the Cherokee Nation belie its commitment to the rule of law,'' she told Congress.
The investigation suggests a campaign of disinformation. Misinformation may result from carelessness, and may benefit either side. Disinformation is created. It uses errors and omissions to obscure truth and to influence public opinion. Here is Watson's version (in italics) of Cherokee history, starting in 1860:
''The Cherokee Nation fought on the side of the Confederacy in order to preserve its southern slaveholding tradition of trafficking in the ownership and sale of black slaves.''
According to 1860 census figures, more than 98 percent of Cherokee citizens did not own slaves. Slaves were owned by 296 Indians and 82 non-Indians, less than 2 percent of the Cherokee population.
''The Cherokees signed a treaty with the Confederate States of America and fought against the United States ...''
At least two-thirds of the Cherokees fought for the Union throughout the war. The treaty with the Confederacy (in effect for less than 16 months) occurred because the United States failed to honor treaty obligations to protect the Cherokees, who were then surrounded by Confederate forces. In the words of the elected chief, ''It is not desirable that we should stand alone. The preservation of our rights and of our existence are above every other consideration.''
''The Cherokee Nation emancipated all its slaves in 1863. In 1866, the Cherokee Nation signed a new treaty with the United States Government that formally ended slavery ...''
The Cherokee Nation, as a nation, owned no slaves. The 1866 treaty merely recognizes that the nation had ''voluntarily'' and ''forever'' abolished slavery three years earlier, two months after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.
Additionally, the Cherokee Act abolishing slavery was adopted almost three years before ratification of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, doing the same. The Cherokee Nation and the newly formed state of West Virginia are apparently the only two governments to abolish slavery (where slave-holding had existed) during the Civil War.
[The Treaty of 1866] ''made the former slaves of the Cherokee citizens of the Cherokee Nation.''
The Treaty of 1866 provides that the freedmen ''shall have all the rights of native Cherokees.'' The 1866 amended Cherokee Constitution provides for them to become citizens.
At this point, Watson claims the present-day descendants of freedmen have treaty entitlements and that the nation's denial of citizenship is racist. It is deeply disturbing that a member of Congress is using the racism card to blatantly deny the rights of the Cherokee Nation. There is no question of the damage African Americans have suffered due to racism. It is naive to think American Indians have not also suffered from racism.
''My legislation only seeks redress [from] the Cherokee Nation for the restoration of their treaty rights that entitle them to citizenship ...''
The descendants of freedmen had such treaty rights until a 1902 act of Congress placed a limitation on future entitlements to enrollment. It provided that citizens living on Sept. 1, 1902, be enrolled and that ''no child born thereafter to a citizen ... shall be entitled to enrollment.'' Cherokee citizens, including the descendants of freedmen, voted to ratify this act; accepting the loss of future entitlements to enrollment, but knowing that each man, woman and child would then be allotted 110 acres of Cherokee land and their proportionate share of other tribal property.
Entitlements to enrollment were legal rights; different from the nation's inherent right to determine its citizens. The Act of 1906 also establishes a cutoff date according to residency requirements. Watson may not have known about these acts of Congress. She refused all invitations to meet with representatives of the Cherokee Nation.
''In May 2003, the Cherokee Nation held an election for its officers and the ratification of a new Constitution. ... The Cherokee Freedmen were not permitted to vote ...''
The more than 1,500 enrolled citizens, who are descendants of the freedmen and have also established Indian ancestry, were able to vote. The thousands of black, brown, Latina, Asian and white citizens who have also established Indian ancestry were able to vote.
[In 2006,] ''the tribal courts ruled in favor of Lucy Allen, a Freedmen descendant who sued for citizenship.''
The March 2006 Cherokee Court ruling determined only that if the 1975 Cherokee Constitution ''was intended to limit membership to citizens by blood, it should have said so'' and required more ''specific language.'' This ruling overturned three decades of court decisions to the contrary, but repeatedly recognized that ''the Cherokee citizenry has the ultimate authority to define tribal citizenship.'' However, the ruling allowed for immediate enrollment of non-Indians in the Cherokee Nation.
The March 2007 vote to amend the Cherokee Constitution provided the more ''specific language'' that had been required by the court. Cherokee citizens reaffirmed what they had already believed to be true. Indian ancestry is required for citizenship in their Indian nation. In the meantime, the 2,867 non-Indians who had been enrolled since the 2006 ruling were no longer entitled to enrollment. This presented a dilemma that is being decided in courts today.
The 2007 vote to amend its constitution was a crucial vote for the future of the Cherokee Nation and its own sense of identity. Unlimited enrollment of non-Indians claiming the right to be enrolled could debilitate the nation and its resources. It would undermine the nation's right to determine its own citizens, and therefore undermine the integrity of the nation.
Watson's actions serve to deny the Cherokee Nation's right to preserve and revitalize its own culture for its continued existence as a distinct people. The right of Cherokee leadership to ''full and effective participation'' in decisions affecting the Cherokee people continues to be rejected. This right is essential to democratic processes.
Indian nations know their own history. Without respect for the right of ''full and effective participation'' of Indian nations in decisions affecting them, other rights can be ignored. Respect for these rights is the obligation of the U.S. government under legally binding international human rights treaties that the government has voluntarily ratified. Otherwise, a member of Congress, using disinformation, can gather support to determine what's best for any Indian nation and threaten its very survival.
Suzanne Jasper is the director of First Peoples Human Rights Coalition, a nonprofit educational organization specifically focusing on the human rights of indigenous peoples. A timeline summary of Cherokee history recently was sent to various members of Congress, along with a brief overview of certain fundamental human rights of indigenous peoples.
Please visit the Indian Country Today website for more articles related to this topic.
|
|
|
Post by Okwes on Mar 7, 2008 14:39:46 GMT -5
Oppose The Termination of the Cherokee Nation capwiz.com/cherokee/issues/alert/?alertid=10443441&queueid=[capwi\z:queue_id <http://capwiz.com/cherokee/issues/alert/?alertid=10443441&queueid=[capw\ iz:queue_id> ] [Take Action] Please write your Senators and Representatives! Call to Action: Termination Bill H.R. 2824! Take Action! <http://capwiz.com/cherokee/utr/1/MYFPHTFIDY/AYIFHTFIJH/1490310591> Please write your elected officials! If you have already sent a letter…this is a new version of a letter opposing the Termination of the Cherokee Nation and is now ready to go to your Senators. Why should Congress let the Courts decide? In addition to Cherokee Nation District Court, these issues are being litigated in U.S. District and Appellate Courts in Washington, D.C. Beyond the tribal court reinstatement, the Nation is committed to keeping the Freedmen descendants as citizens until all litigation has been resolved – and beyond if they prevail in court. Congress should allow the Federal and Tribal Courts to do their work without interference. Thank you for your time and careful consideration!
|
|
|
Post by blackcrowheart on Apr 2, 2008 11:12:35 GMT -5
Appeals court to hear Cherokee Freedmen case Thursday, March 27, 2008 Filed Under: Law | Politics
The dispute over the legal status of the Cherokee Freedmen will be heard by a federal appeals court in May amid efforts by Congress to resolve the controversy.
The Freedmen are the descendants of former slaves. They say a treaty signed after the end of the Civil War guarantees them citizenship in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.
Tribal leaders and members disagree. In March 2007, Cherokee voters amended their constitution to deny citizenship to people who can't trace their ancestry to the Indian portion of the Dawes Rolls that were created by the federal government after the 1866 treaty.
A tribal court has reinstated about 2,800 Freedmen to citizenship pending a challenge to the referendum. But that hasn't stopped litigation over the dispute and it hasn't stopped members of Congress from threatening to cut federal funding to the Cherokee Nation.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs has said it will protect the rights of the Freedmen. Assistant secretary Carl Artman told Cherokee Chief Chad Smith that the tribe agreed to enroll the Freedmen "in exchange for amnesty and the continuation of the government-to-government relationship" in a May 2007 letter.
But the Bush administration says the litigation filed by Marilyn Vann, a Freedmen leader, should end since one of the main issues in the case -- the status of the Cherokee constitution -- has been resolved. In August, Artman approved changes to the tribe's constitution -- including a provision that eliminates future federal review of the document.
The Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss Vann's case but Judge Henry H. Kennedy in Washington, D.C., declined in a short decision on February 7. Kennedy, however, agreed to stay proceedings pending an appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
On May 6, a three-judge panel of the appeals court will consider another big issue in the case -- whether the Freedmen can sue the Cherokee Nation. Kennedy ruled that the tribe's sovereign immunity was waived by the 1866 treaty and the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which outlawed slavery.
The tribe is disputing the idea that it can be sued without its consent. Cherokee leaders say Kennedy's decision sets a bad precedent for Indian County, though only a small number -- most notably the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma -- signed treaties regarding their former slaves.
In addition to the lawsuit, the tribe is fighting legislation that could cut off its federal funds unless the Freedmen are permanently restored to citizenship. Last September, the House added a provision to the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act that would eliminate housing funds.
Chief Smith has appealed to other tribes in the U.S. and Canada -- and even to the United Nations -- to protect what he says is the Cherokee Nation's inherent right to decide who is entitled to citizenship. The tribe also has mounted an extensive lobbying and public relations campaign to protest the legislation.
"The legislation would, in effect, either allow Congress to determine membership in the Cherokee nation or sever federal financial obligations to the nation, close Cherokee businesses, and legitimize unfounded lawsuits against the nation," Smith told the United Nation's High Commissioner for Human Rights last month.
According to the tribe, it will lose out on $300 million in direct federal funding under the various pieces of legislation. Under one bill, the tribe will be forced to close its gaming facilities, which are a significant source of revenue.
The May 6 oral arguments will be heard by Judge David S. Tatel, a Clinton nominee, Judge Merrick B. Garland, a Clinton nominee, and Judge Thomas B. Griffith, a Bush nominee.
Tatel has heard a number of Indian law cases, including the Cobell trust fund case. Garland also has heard the Cobell case. Griffith is relatively new to the court and used to work for the Senate as its legal counsel.
|
|
|
Post by blackcrowheart on Aug 12, 2008 11:54:15 GMT -5
Court rules freedmen can sue Cherokee tribal officers By Chris Casteel - July 29, 2008 WASHINGTON - The descendants of former slaves owned by the Cherokee Nation can sue the tribe's officers for disenfranchising them from tribal elections, a federal appeals court here ruled today. The ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was a victory for the so-called "freedmen,'' who filed suit after being prevented from voting in two tribal elections in 2003. The tribe argued that it had sovereign immunity and couldn't be sued. The appeals court ruled today that the Cherokee Nation does have sovereign immunity in the case but that the tribal leaders do not. "Faced with allegations of ongoing constitutional and treaty violations, and a prospective request for injunctive relief, officers of the Cherokee Nation cannot seek shelter in the tribe's sovereign immunity,'' the court's opinion says. The case will now go back to U.S. district court here, where it was filed. The Cherokee Nation voted last year to amend its constitution to remove all freedmen descendants from the tribal rolls who do not have Cherokee blood. The change is being challenged in a Cherokee court. Angered by the Cherokee Nation's action, many members of Congress are trying to strip the tribe of some of its federal funding, and the tribe has been fighting a public relations and lobbying battle here to prevent it.
|
|
|
Post by ujisesofuzow on Jun 11, 2019 3:32:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by iwojjouxegese on Jun 11, 2019 5:49:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Adrienne on May 21, 2020 4:13:12 GMT -5
generic cialis tadalafil best buys buy cialis online cialis 5 mg best price
|
|