*laughing at AC's comments*
That's about it-it is lengthy, but heh, if you don't want to read it, you don't have to.
It is just some of the legal precendents for native sovereignty. There are numerous more cases you can pull up. I just took the notes from my exam, and put in some links if you want to read the cases.
“This tribal sovereign status was not delegated to the tribes by the courts, the federal government, or the states. It is original and inherent, though it has been directedly impacted by various federal and state laws, policies and regulations. Tribal sovereignty has been recognized by several European nations; the federal government through hundreds of treaties, nearly 400 of which were ratified by the Senate and proclaimed by the President and by the states, who were forced to concede that as a result of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, they lacked authority to deal with tribal nations. Thus, fundamentally, the tribal relationship to the United States is a political one, although it is a relationship affected by tribal culture.†David E. Wilkins, American Indian Sovereignty and the U.S. Supreme Court, p. 21.
Prior to the establishment of the United States, the British had completed treaties with native groups treating them as independent sovereign nations. This practice continued after 1776 into the time period of the Articles of Confederation
Northwest Ordinance of 1787 the federal government would never violate the rights or properties of tribes without their consent
Fletcher v. Peck: (1810)
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct ... 87_ZS.html
Chief Justice Marshall remarked on the fact that Indian reserved land in the way of expanding white settlement was merely a “temporary arrangement.†Indian sovereignty was “diminished†and that Indian tribes were only “occupying†lands which the United States owned.
Johnson v. McIntosh: (1823)
Federal authority was called “plenary†when dealing with tribal governments.
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... =30&page=1
The Cherokees were a state, “a distinct political society, separated from others, capable of managing its own affairs and governing itself.†They became a “domestic dependent nationâ€, in a “state of pupilage,†with the “relation…of a ward to a guardian†to underscore the superior-inferior relationship.
Worcester v. Georgia: (1832)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 1&page=515
Cherokee Nation a distinct community, occupying its own territory with boundaries, Georgia had no force to make the Cherokees remove
President Jackson disobeyed the Supreme Court and fot
U.S. v. Rogers: (1846)
Congress could legislate for both white and Indian crimes in the Indian Territory in spite of the treaty recognition of the latter’s independence.
The Cherokee Tobacco: (1870)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=616
Court’s recognition of congressional power to modify an Indian treaty and to pass an act in violation of the treaty, “as if the treaty were not an element to be considered.â€
The Court announced that the Indian was outside the 14th Amendment guarantees, but emphasized the inviolability of past treaty obligations.
Standing Bear v. Crook: (1879)
Court ruled that Native Americans are people, but it did not immediately or permanently alter the way in which the federal government dealt with Indians.
Ex Parte Crow Dog: (1883)(book on the case, very good,
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&s=books
Indians, “had always been…wards subject to a guardianâ€.
Elks v. Wilkins: (1884)
An individual Indian could not become a citizen without a special congressional enactment.
U.S. v. Kagama: (1886)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... &invol=375
Indians were wholly dependent on the United States, stressing the necessity for the federal government to appropriate tribal government functions such as jurisdiction over homicide.
Choctaw Nation v. U.S.: (1886)
The native/federal government relationship was one of a “superior to an inferior.â€
Elks, Kagama and Choctaw Nation expanded federal intervention in tribal governmental affairs and lessened self-governance for the Indians.
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock: (1903)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... 3Excellent book on this case: Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock by Blue Clark
Indian as a dependent ward was unprotected by outmoded treaty guarantees.
For thirty years the doctrine of guardianship dominated Indian affairs and remains an often-quoted precedent down to the present time.
United States v. Nice: (1916)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=591
U.S. citizenship could be granted to tribal people or those who were living with guardians. Three years later U.S. citizenship was granted to Native Americans who had served in the armed forces during WWI. In 1924 citizenship was conferred to all Native Americans, although some states withheld state citizenship.
Washington v. McCoy: (1963)
State had the right to regulate fishing on the basis of conservation.
Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game: (1968)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 4&invol=44
Supreme Court ruled in favor of Indian fishing rights as outlined in the Medicine Creek Treaty, but it did not deal with the questions involved in the fishing issue.
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez: (1978)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 6&invol=49
Tribe not bound by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, tribal membership could be denied to descendants who had married outside of the pueblo.
NATIONAL FARMERS UNION INS. COMPANIES v. CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS , 468 U.S. 1315 (1984)
"To be sure, Indian Tribes retain inherent sovereign power to exercise some forms of civil jurisdiction over non-Indians on their reservations, even on non-Indian fee lands. A tribe may regulate, through taxation, [468 U.S. 1315 , 1322] licensing, or other means, the activities of nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members, through commercial dealings, contracts, leases, or other arrangements. . . . A tribe may also retain inherent power to exercise civil authority over the conduct of non-Indians on fee lands within its reservation when that conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe
From Vine Deloria, Lyttle, American Indians, American Justice
The courts recognized that the past exploitation of the Indians could not be sanctioned by the force of law and hence developed a set of judicial rules by which to deal with these problems. Among the important rules of construction are:
1. Ambiguities in treaties are to be constructed in favor of the Indian claimant.
2. Indian treaties are to be interpreted as the Indians would have understood them.
3. Indian treaties are to be liberally construed in favor of the Indians.
4. Treaties reserve to Indians all rights that have not been granted away (reserved rights doctrine).
a. used in the area of water rights
b. Winters v. U.S. (1908): U.S. examined the possible expectations that must have been present in the minds of Indians and federal officials
Darn acronyms, eh Abbey?
