Post by blackcrowheart on Sept 25, 2006 15:33:42 GMT -5
Indians' legal standing outlined
By SARA KINCAID
Bismarck Tribune
Separate, equal and subject to interpretation, the American Indians' legal standing in the United States is ambiguous at times.
Attorney Thomas Disselhorst summarized the American Indians' place in the U.S. Constitution and other federal decisions during a talk at United Tribes Technical College on Monday afternoon. It was an activity to commemorate Constitution Day.
Acts of Congress and successive Supreme Court decisions chipped away and contradicted rights of a group of people seen as separate since colonial times.
But then the Constitution did three things for American Indians: It separated them out from recognized citizens; they were designated as a separate entity for purposes of commerce; and it made treaties the "supreme law of the land."
American Indians did not become U.S. citizens until an act of Congress in 1924. This prevented them from holding property and participating in other rights given to citizens.
Regulating commerce was more to keep the states from making deals with individual tribes.
"They wanted the central government to have control over the relationships with tribes, not states," Disselhorst said.
The use of treaties changed in 1871 with an act of Congress to no longer make treaties with tribes, but nothing was to change with the enforcement of other treaties. Then in 1903, Congress took control of Indian affairs. A Supreme Court case spelled out that the government's purpose is to support tribal self-governing and control internal relations.
Chief Justice John Marshall wrote opinions of the Supreme Court that further defined the relationship of the United States and the American Indians.
One opinion declared they owned no land because they were conquered, another was to define a tribal nation as a "domestic dependent nation." This meant that it was within the United States, relied on the United States for protection and had its own laws, Disselhorst said.
Today, there are organizations pursuing more awareness of tribal sovereignty to reverse Supreme Court decisions that have lessened tribal sovereignty.
(Reach reporter Sara Kincaid at 250-8251 or sara.kincaid@;bismarcktribune.com.)
By SARA KINCAID
Bismarck Tribune
Separate, equal and subject to interpretation, the American Indians' legal standing in the United States is ambiguous at times.
Attorney Thomas Disselhorst summarized the American Indians' place in the U.S. Constitution and other federal decisions during a talk at United Tribes Technical College on Monday afternoon. It was an activity to commemorate Constitution Day.
Acts of Congress and successive Supreme Court decisions chipped away and contradicted rights of a group of people seen as separate since colonial times.
But then the Constitution did three things for American Indians: It separated them out from recognized citizens; they were designated as a separate entity for purposes of commerce; and it made treaties the "supreme law of the land."
American Indians did not become U.S. citizens until an act of Congress in 1924. This prevented them from holding property and participating in other rights given to citizens.
Regulating commerce was more to keep the states from making deals with individual tribes.
"They wanted the central government to have control over the relationships with tribes, not states," Disselhorst said.
The use of treaties changed in 1871 with an act of Congress to no longer make treaties with tribes, but nothing was to change with the enforcement of other treaties. Then in 1903, Congress took control of Indian affairs. A Supreme Court case spelled out that the government's purpose is to support tribal self-governing and control internal relations.
Chief Justice John Marshall wrote opinions of the Supreme Court that further defined the relationship of the United States and the American Indians.
One opinion declared they owned no land because they were conquered, another was to define a tribal nation as a "domestic dependent nation." This meant that it was within the United States, relied on the United States for protection and had its own laws, Disselhorst said.
Today, there are organizations pursuing more awareness of tribal sovereignty to reverse Supreme Court decisions that have lessened tribal sovereignty.
(Reach reporter Sara Kincaid at 250-8251 or sara.kincaid@;bismarcktribune.com.)