“Let me be a free man. Free to travel. Free to stop. Free to work. Free to think and talk and act for myself” - Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce Tribe
Johnson v. McIntosh.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.
Worcester v. Georgia.
The "Marshall Trilogy.
In these three cases, the United States Supreme Court established the doctrinal basis for interpreting federal Native law and defined tribal sovereignty. In the first of three landmark court cases, Johnson v. McIntosh, the court ruled that Native American tribes could not convey land to private parties without federal consent. The Court reasoned that after the establishment of the US, the rights of the tribes to complete sovereignty were diminished. We do not agree with this ruling as it unjustly rendered …show more content…
However, treble citizenship has far more disadvantages as history has shows the U.S Constitution provides only partial protection of basic tribal and American citizenship rights. For example, the 1st Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as not protecting the religious freedom rights of tribal members. This can be seen in the case, Employment Division v. Smith,where the Supreme Court held that a state can deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes. Native Americans are also not guaranteed protection under the 5th Amendment as seen in the case United States v. Wheeler, in which the court ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the federal prosecution of a Native American. This is in part because of the Supreme Court case United States v Nice which declared that Congress still retained plenary power when Native Americans were granted citizenship. Thus,enforcing treble citizenship on indigenous people who are inherently bound by a separate governmental body is extremely disadvantageous as their rights as native americans can be adversely affected by federal plenary …show more content…
Pre -existing sovereign tribes do not derive their inherent governmental powers from the federal or state government. Thus, they have an extra constitutional relationship with the United States, bound only by treaties. Indigenous nations are bound by the constitution only because of a history of oppressive federal policies aimed at the forced Americanization and coercive assimilation of tribal citizens. Federal constitutions do not and should not apply to Native tribes . Therefore in order for tribal citizens to retain and exercise a measure of their original political independence as well as their culture, tribal law must prevail. Additionally, treaty rights, which are the supreme law of the land, outlined in Article 6 Clause 2, further establishes that tribal law should be guaranteed full protection under the Constitution's rubric. Thus when state and federal laws conflict with these treaties, they should be deemed invalid. Finally, the Reserved Rights Doctrine, identified in United States v Winans, holds that any rights not specifically addressed in treaties are reserved to the tribe. Currently, the Standing Rock Sioux tribes fight against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline is a testament to the ongoing degradation of our native people. This issue encompasses tribal political independence, treaties, and water rights in regards to the Reserved Rights Doctrine. This
Johnson v. McIntosh.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.
Worcester v. Georgia.
The "Marshall Trilogy.
In these three cases, the United States Supreme Court established the doctrinal basis for interpreting federal Native law and defined tribal sovereignty. In the first of three landmark court cases, Johnson v. McIntosh, the court ruled that Native American tribes could not convey land to private parties without federal consent. The Court reasoned that after the establishment of the US, the rights of the tribes to complete sovereignty were diminished. We do not agree with this ruling as it unjustly rendered …show more content…
However, treble citizenship has far more disadvantages as history has shows the U.S Constitution provides only partial protection of basic tribal and American citizenship rights. For example, the 1st Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as not protecting the religious freedom rights of tribal members. This can be seen in the case, Employment Division v. Smith,where the Supreme Court held that a state can deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes. Native Americans are also not guaranteed protection under the 5th Amendment as seen in the case United States v. Wheeler, in which the court ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the federal prosecution of a Native American. This is in part because of the Supreme Court case United States v Nice which declared that Congress still retained plenary power when Native Americans were granted citizenship. Thus,enforcing treble citizenship on indigenous people who are inherently bound by a separate governmental body is extremely disadvantageous as their rights as native americans can be adversely affected by federal plenary …show more content…
Pre -existing sovereign tribes do not derive their inherent governmental powers from the federal or state government. Thus, they have an extra constitutional relationship with the United States, bound only by treaties. Indigenous nations are bound by the constitution only because of a history of oppressive federal policies aimed at the forced Americanization and coercive assimilation of tribal citizens. Federal constitutions do not and should not apply to Native tribes . Therefore in order for tribal citizens to retain and exercise a measure of their original political independence as well as their culture, tribal law must prevail. Additionally, treaty rights, which are the supreme law of the land, outlined in Article 6 Clause 2, further establishes that tribal law should be guaranteed full protection under the Constitution's rubric. Thus when state and federal laws conflict with these treaties, they should be deemed invalid. Finally, the Reserved Rights Doctrine, identified in United States v Winans, holds that any rights not specifically addressed in treaties are reserved to the tribe. Currently, the Standing Rock Sioux tribes fight against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline is a testament to the ongoing degradation of our native people. This issue encompasses tribal political independence, treaties, and water rights in regards to the Reserved Rights Doctrine. This