Indians' legal standing outlined

 
LOADING
Sep 19, 2006 - 02:06:37 CDT
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.)
   Printer friendly version
Indians' legal standing outlined
Comments

Online Editor wrote on Sep 23, 2006 5:45 PM:

" To Victim: I think you should call the editor, Dave Bundy, to discuss your concerns. He works normal business hours, his phone number is 250-8266. "

Online Editor wrote on Sep 21, 2006 9:41 AM:

" To "To Sara Kincaid": Good question. The Editor, Dave Bundy, and I have discussed reporter commenting a number of times. We are fine with reporters commenting on stories as long as they identify themselves instead of commenting anonymously. Reporters have opinions and insight just like readers. Sometimes they may have additional information a reader requests as well. Reporters' comments are held to the same, possibly higher, standards the typical readers. As far as the reporters views, they don't come into play unless a piece is clearly labeled as an opinion piece or a column. The views that come through in a story are likely from people being written about rather than the writer. Reporters frequently have to write stories that are contrary to their personal views, but that's part of the job. "

To Sara Kincaid wrote on Sep 21, 2006 9:24 AM:

" This is the first time I have seen a reporter comment on a story. Is that typical or necessary? Many of the blogs end up discussing issues contrary to the reporter's views. Do you think this sets an example that we expect other reporters to explain themselves? Just curious. "

John A. Fleming, Consultant, Federal Indian Program Oversight wrote on Sep 21, 2006 2:42 AM:

" One cannot dispel or even adequately challenge Atty. Disselhort’s over all and detailed message he gave the students of UTTC, on the recent activity commemorating Constitution Day on these pages. His discussion contained errors of facts, was a grand spin on what did take place, and lives up to the standards of the Indian Industry take on history, civics and our Constitution. Both Dave Bundy and Sara Kincaid are doing a great job opening up this subject, which I call the American Indian Dilemma. For a detailed and well indexed account of “the other side” and my backup for the criticism noted in the above paragraph, I urge you and your readership to review the work of Fleming, Jones, Willman and others found under links at www.parr1.com . Please note that Paul Jones has a second case stagnating at the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that includes major issues attacking the Constitutionality of 25 U.S.-Indians and specifically named and un named oath takes at the federal and state levels of government for both violating their oaths of office and the Public Trust their positions impose upon each of them, because of their active support or simple acquiescence of certain Federal Indian Programs with Unconstitutional End Results adversely effecting citizen. Again, this is a trespass case solely involving the U. S. Constitution. "

Horse of a different color wrote on Sep 20, 2006 7:30 PM:

" To unknown:Thanks for reading my comment. I know I can move anywhere, so can you. More importantly, the point is that the US government entered into treaties with the Native American Indians giving them certain rights. Our government did this, so that is the way it is, and they agreed to do this as long as the rivers flow and the grass grows, so why keep hollering that the indians should not get what the US government agreed to give them in exchange for their land? Pretty shrewd thinking on behalf of the Native American Indian's ancestors, even though it seemed not every one was in agreement with some of the treaties they are still law. Like you said, no one is holding any one here, don't like it, you have the freedom to move elsewhere...Me I like the freedom we have, and the right to free speech too that allows you and I to comment on these issues, so I am not going anywhere. Have a good evening. "

Online Editor wrote on Sep 20, 2006 1:30 PM:

" To Unknown: You are correct. Your comment wasn't posted right away because I was eating lunch. "

Unknown wrote on Sep 20, 2006 11:57 AM:

" To "a horse of a different color"; you stated that the non-Indian government signed the treaties that were not authorized by the people; in the same token, our government made treaties that were not greed on by all Americans and certainly not by any year-to-date. There is a time for change. Several countries in the past that have taken over other civilizations and they do not pay the previous owners anything. Back then, things were different. If they had not taken what is now known as United States of America, it could have been Russia or any other county that had taken it. The settlers that came here were from everywhere. Native Americans along with everyone else should be happy that we live in the United States regardless of how it came to be. I am not making light of the fact of the devastation of the Native American people. I am just stating that it is what it is and we should all be so lucky to be here!!! You have your freedom. You have the freedom to move elsewhere if you so choose. No one is holding you here. "

Dave Bundy, editor wrote on Sep 20, 2006 9:13 AM:

" To To All Natives: What's racist about a story clarifying tribal sovereignty? Have you missed the editorial stances in support of Native issues -- funding for UTTC, preservation of Native languages, support for health care and infrastructure issues. We've done scores of positive feature stories, too. We've highlighted problems to get help. Please show me where we've been racist in this story or anywhere else. I'm not saying it might not be there, but I'm saying I haven't seen it and helping us understand would be more constructive than calling for a boycott and letting us continue to make mistakes. "

To All Natives wrote on Sep 20, 2006 8:06 AM:

" Let's not buy the Bismarck Tribune anymore..they do nothing but insist on making Natives look bad, then finding some excuse to cover it up..let's start our own newspaper.. "

Whispering Wind wrote on Sep 19, 2006 11:15 PM:

" I am in total agreement with Horse of a Different Color to the article. I would like to add that to eliminate the whole reservation and make all of our citizens participants in democracy??? I feel one cannot force assimilation on Native Americans into main stream society, we will always be Native Americans and that my friend is not democracy. I often hear that Native Americans are a conquered people? I feel that we Native Americans are not a conquered people, we will always be Native Americans and we are still here today despite attempts from our government to eliminate the Indians. "

Whispering Wind wrote on Sep 19, 2006 11:00 PM:

" I am in total agreement with Horse of a Different Color to the article. I would like to add that to eliminate the whole reservation and make all of our citizens participants in democracy??? I feel one cannot force assimilation on Native Americans into main stream society, we will always be Native Americans and that my friend is not democracy. I often hear that Native Americans are a conquered people? I feel that we Native Americans are not a conquered people, we will always be Native Americans and we are still here today despite attempts from our government to eliminate the Indians. "

a horse of a different color wrote on Sep 19, 2006 6:56 PM:

" The phrase concerning the rivers flowing and the grass growing was not coined by the Indian people, it was a promise made in a treaty by the non-Indian government to the Indian people in a treaty,I learned in class that most of the Indians who signed away land on behalf of their tribes in exchange for promises made by the government to the Indian people in the treaties,were not authorized to do so by their own people. Nevertheless, they did, and now the US government and the tribes that entered into these treaties are held to them. Take time to read these treaties, it is interesting to see what the us government promised the native american people in exchange for their land and for peace. The other issue I would like to comment on is the timing of the greatest garage sale weekend, isn't it coincidental that it falls on the same weekend as United Tribes pow wow? How many Indians who come for the pow wow realize that that weekend is touted as the biggest garage sale weekend of the year, and they spend their dollars on rummage that is offered for sale at that particular time. I would not want to live in the bismarck area if I was a person of color after reading the uneducated remarks being made,no wonder some groups stay close knit they are made to feel that way. You know, when there are more people of one kind who hold themselves seperate and superior to another group of people, it tends to cause that smaller group to stay together as a group for safety, and unfortunately alienates them from others. Every day non-Indian people kill, rape and kidnap others, but racial remarks don't follow, but let one Indian get in a fight at a pow wow and they are made fun of and ridiculed, sure fighting is wrong, and what about the victim, how do you think they feel when what was probably a serious issue to them is made into a joke...think about it. "

tf wrote on Sep 19, 2006 4:48 PM:

" PAY "as long as the grass grows and the rivers flow." I guess that answers the question i've been asking for a long time. "

Unknown wrote on Sep 19, 2006 3:52 PM:

" Sorry for the typo, it was supposed to say white people are the majority not minority. "

Unknown wrote on Sep 19, 2006 3:48 PM:

" I have had friends who were Native American. I have had friends from all races. I think it is convenient for people to use racism for any situation that they see fit. There are people racist against white people. Because white people are not the minority does not mean that there is not racism against them. It seems as if a white person says anything that is not to the liking of another race, it is sometimes misconstrued as a racist remark; however, minorities seem to be able to say anything about white people and that is fine. There is always a double standard. You cannot want to be treated the same and want to be treated differently. At some point there needs to be a choice made. I am not saying that there are not racist people out there; I am just saying that some people from all races are racist. We need to stop making it a general accusation against one race and start looking at the individuals that are making the comments. There are evil people in all races and we need to take care of the issues at hand. For example of inappropriate and inaccurate racial situation: Katrina was a disaster and the people did not deserve how the government treated them; however, it was made to be a racial issue. The millions of people showing their support where not racist so how was it a racial issue??? The people that were there did not have the ability due to poverty issues to leave the situation; so how this relates to race and turns into a racial issue needs to be looked at. We need to start working with all races united to combat this misuse of racial issues. I believe that people of all races should be concerned. When we cry wolf, it affects the way real racial issues get resolved. "

indians in the headline... wrote on Sep 19, 2006 2:59 PM:

" I'm betting that this is soon going to be one of the most commented on stories, filled with stereotyping, prejudiced and bigotry like most stories relating to anything Native American are. We definitely need to promote positive race relations in this community and I think education in the form of a special Tribune section about racism and and cultural diversity in the community will help. "

Unknown wrote on Sep 19, 2006 2:27 PM:

" I think that the Native American people need to be treated as equals. Everyone wants equality but to be equals means that "they" are treated like the rest of the citizens of the United States. Everyone regrets the past; however, we need to make a great future and in order to do that, every race needs to look forward instead of looking back! There is always someone who has been wronged. We in the present should not be discriminated against for the sins of people in the past. "

karla wrote on Sep 19, 2006 12:24 PM:

" How can they eliminate reservations when that is all that is left for Native people to call home, when in fact this whole continent was considered home at one time. They talk about us being conquered and should have no land, well in my opinion, the U.S flag was captured by our people the day Custer lost the battle, so by rights, the flag is ours. The United States goverment should be true to their word, and forever pay, as long as the grass grows, and rivers flow. "

de'wal'lee wrote on Sep 19, 2006 12:14 PM:

" barry lets open these reservations and eliminate the whole reservaton system. barry seems to be the reservation expert so let him explain what exactly this fix is going to be. the reservations consist of alot more than welfare, food stamps and casinos, but barry is the expert let him explain how the state of north dakota is going to accomidate a influx of 75000 people into there system. i think barry has little real knowlegde of the real life that these five reservations endure on a day to day basis, its not that simplistic. "

Agreed wrote on Sep 19, 2006 12:02 PM:

" Get rid of the reservations. As conquered and dislocated peoples, Native Americans should buy their own land just like the rest of us did after fleeing europe for whatever awful conditions existed over there. "

Sara Kincaid, reporter wrote on Sep 19, 2006 10:29 AM:

" I'm not sure how my article about a talk on Native Americans and the constitution makes the entire newspaper racist. If anyone has concerns about what I've written, my phone number is at the bottom of the article. I would be happy to speak with you. "

Aaron wrote on Sep 19, 2006 9:52 AM:

" Barry, how do you propose we eliminate reservations? They are lands belonging to federally recognized soverign nations. Say a particular Indian nation were to agree "reservation elimination", who gets the land? Would it revert to federal government ownership (wasnt that the problem/objection in the first place?)Would the land be given to individual tribal members (would that not just keep the members in the same location creating the appearance of "apartheid"?) Whats the solution?? As far as aparheid goes, no Native American is presently being forced by the US government to live on a reservation. Without governmental requirement there is no apartheid. As for stereotypes, locations do not create them. Human ignorance creates and perpetuates them. The mere existance of a reservation doesnt create an outsiders slanted/misguided opinions. I agree there was a time of dependence on reservations created by a government that feared uprising from people who were not US citizens and were believed to be a threat..that time was over a century ago. The tribal members are now US citizens with all the freedom of choice, movement and commerce afforded to any other citizen. While I'm not a Native American and have never lived on a reservation, I dont claim to understand the obstacles to pulling oneself out of the squalor found on some reservations. I do know Native Americans who have done just that and work daily to make their Nations better places to be...without worring about ignorant perceptions of both non indians and tribal members who treat more successful indians as "sell outs". It all boils down to desire and motivation. Just as folks of other minorities can pull themselves out of innercity ghettos, Native Americans can evaluate the circumstances/obstacles they face and do the same if they so desire. No its not easy and not without racist impediment but it IS possible. "

Unified wrote on Sep 19, 2006 9:52 AM:

" Bismarck Tribune is racist "

Barry wrote on Sep 19, 2006 7:30 AM:

" Let's make all our citizens full particiapnts in democracy, open commerce and civic responsibilities. Eliminate the whole reservation, apartheid, stereotype creating, dependence preserving system. "

Post Your Own Comment
(optional)
   
All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.

Copyright © 2009 Bismarck Tribune, a division of Lee Enterprises.  -PRIVACY POLICY