Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Supreme Court rules half of Oklahoma is Indian Reservation
#11
IMHO, this opens the door for a lot of stuff. If suddenly the supreme court is upholding the treaties that were given over a hundred years ago (as they should) there are many tribes who may move forward in making sure their treaties are upheld and restored.
For instance the tribes in OK could and likely will assume property tax collection in that part of the state. Tribal police system could be setup, Tulsa and other townships leaders may be invalidated and tribal members could be installed, county commissioners etc. It really calls everything into question. not only in OK but in dozens of states across the country where this has been the exact same issue.

This ruling is a green light for the Hawaii sovereignty movement. Im not sure what path they would take but it certainly calls into question if the legal process of how Hawaii was acquired and brought into statehood. (you all heard the story about Grover Cleveland pulling the treaty of annexation etc)
Reply
#12
The Hawaiian sovereignty advocates are so factionalized that I don't see anything coming out of the SCOTUS decision. Former Sen. Akaka blew a huge opportunity when he overplayed his hand during the last episode of Democratic control of both houses of congress, and his bill went nowhere. Indian tribal equivalence was promoted as one possibility then, but was rejected by some Hawaiian activists, mainly kingdom/independence proponents. Meanwhile, the Hawaiians held a constitutional convention and wrote a vague document that was to be put to a vote. The promoters failed, however, to raise the few hundred thousand dollars it would have taken for a vote by all the purported "qualified" Hawaiians, that last concept being another sticking point.

Even if Biden wins and Democrats gain control of both houses again, I don't see a sovereign Hawaiian nation any time soon. They don't know what they want, and they don't have the unity or organizational skills to get it if they ever figure it out. They do, however, have the ability to block telescopes and economic progress, so we'll have to settle for that.
Reply
#13
  • Indian tribal equivalence was promoted... but was rejected by some Hawaiian activists
  • Hawaiians held a constitutional convention and wrote a vague document that was to be put to a vote. The promoters failed, however, to raise the few hundred thousand dollars it would have taken for a vote
  • "qualified" Hawaiians, that last concept being another sticking point.
They do, however, have the ability to block telescopes and economic progress, so we'll have to settle for that.

But not apparently, an ability to clean up after the blockade.  Somewhat important if your rallying cry is Protect the Aina.
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
Reply
#14
(07-10-2020, 09:37 PM)kander Wrote: IMHO, this opens the door for a lot of stuff. If suddenly the supreme court is upholding the treaties that were given over a hundred years ago (as they should) there are many tribes who may move forward in making sure their treaties are upheld and restored.
For instance the tribes in OK could and likely will assume property tax collection in that part of the state. Tribal police system could be setup, Tulsa and other townships leaders may be invalidated and tribal members could be installed, county commissioners etc. It really calls everything into question. not only in OK but in dozens of states across the country where this has been the exact same issue.

This ruling is a green light for the Hawaii sovereignty movement. Im not sure what path they would take but it certainly calls into question if the legal process of how Hawaii was acquired and brought into statehood. (you all heard the story about Grover Cleveland pulling the treaty of annexation etc)

Maybe, maybe not.  The reservations still exist at the whim of congress.  Part of the reason why the supremes ruled the way they did is that the federal government could not prove that congress had invalidated the treaty as previously thought.  But you are right that the Native Americans under existing law have the authority to run their reservation under their own laws.  I doubt that they would want to replace the city government of Tusla and whatever county that resides in, but as I understand it they could.
Reply
#15
Sovereignty could be a useful concept here to get around state government bureaucracy, the Jones Act, solve affordable housing, create jobs, etc. Instead it'll never happen because the feckless fringe want to use it to create some kind of racist paradise that doesn't have to exist within the constraints of reality or actual history.
Reply
#16
I am not aware that the U.S.Government ever recognized a Hawaiian "tribe" or made a treaty with one.
Assume the best and ask questions.

Punaweb moderator
Reply
#17
This will likely be corrected next time congress meet. The tribe could get some good concessions if they play it right.
Trying to annex a city would meet legal and physical resistance
Reply
#18
(07-11-2020, 08:42 PM)Rob Tucker Wrote: I am not aware that the U.S.Government ever recognized a Hawaiian "tribe" or made a treaty with one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_Treaty_of_1875

Free access to US sugar markets in exchange for Pearl Harbor.  

I don't know the history of what happened afterwards but from my armchair wonder if they determined that is the only treaty in effect, lands outside of the area could be subjected to a reservation style governance?
Reply
#19
(07-11-2020, 09:11 PM)terracore Wrote:
(07-11-2020, 08:42 PM)Rob Tucker Wrote: I am not aware that the U.S.Government ever recognized a Hawaiian "tribe" or made a treaty with one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_Treaty_of_1875

Free access to US sugar markets in exchange for Pearl Harbor.  

I don't know the history of what happened afterwards but from my armchair wonder if they determined that is the only treaty in effect, lands outside of the area could be subjected to a reservation style governance?
That treaty was with a government. Not a blood quantum tribe ( don’t know the official word for that)
Reply
#20
After the Costigan-Jones Act of 1934 classified Hawaii as a "non-domestic producer" of sugar, Big Sugar decided statehood would be a better option. Their plans were put on hold by the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)