-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Supreme Court says eastern Oklahoma remains Native American territory
- Thread starter B-Dubs
- Start date
Hmmm not sure about that. Wouldn't people outside the tribes also fall under tribal jurisdiction for criminal matters? Since they are on tribal lands now. If i read correctly they also have to deal with all the convictions that the state did, but are on tribal lands. The state technically didn't have jurisdiction to convict.
Those individuals are still bound by state law and the state has criminal jurisdiction over them. Even if their act occurs on reservation land.
See the following article from a few years ago explaining some of the finer points of how criminal jurisdiction is handled on Indian land https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...als-can-get-away-with-almost-anything/273391/
Last edited:
for picture reference on just how much of Oklahoma is now reservation land:
Beautiful.
You're welcome. It is written that way to make it easier when the case is cited later.
for picture reference on just how much of Oklahoma is now reservation land:
Cool, I now live three miles to the east of the Cherokee reservation. We have one of their large Casino's just on the other side of the border in Oklahoma (I'm in Arkansas).
On a side note, I wonder what it means for white farmers that are not Indians in those territories. For instance, my old broker was representing a seller that could not prove he legally had purchased farmland from the Cherokee tribe and the deal fell apart. I always wondered if the seller would have to vacate the land. (I think he should have to give it back if it was proven he/or his ancestors stole it).
I guess the tribal land was not part of the homesteading that happened in Oklahoma (that was in the western half)?
I mean, there's 100% no question that Alito and Thomas are the worst justices on the bench. They're not conservative, they're just ideologues. Thomas literally doesn't even bother asking questions most of the time, when he spoke up during proceedings it was actual news.
I did kinda forget about Alito, but in my recollection he always votes shitty but doesn't write any of the really bullshit opinions. I suppose Kavanaugh hasn't been around long enough to be all that terrible yet, but I expect great (bad) things from him.
I don't even mind Thomas not asking questions. I'm sure he's got his reasons and it doesn't affect one's ability to do the job imo. The problem is that everything that does come out of his mouth and pen is complete bullshit.
i feel like in many ways he's breaking with Republicans because he has some actual conservative views on how the law should be interpreted, and not just whatever horseshit Republicans happen to come up with at the spur of the moment to justify their fuckery
If any source you're reading is making bold claims outside of how this affects anything other than criminal jurisdiction involving tribal members on tribal land, then I'd be wary of believing that source. This is a complicated and unique issue mainstream media isn't particularly equipped to handle, so just know there's a lot out there that's not correct and a decent amount of it is related to fearmongering from the Oklahoma AG. There are potential ramifications beyond criminal justice, just use your head here.
Specifically regarding the fearmongering of the number of cases needing to be retired and the cost of such retrials that the AG trotted out, reporting shows the number of cases is much smaller than the number often quoted.
Specifically regarding the fearmongering of the number of cases needing to be retired and the cost of such retrials that the AG trotted out, reporting shows the number of cases is much smaller than the number often quoted.
As much as the US fucked over the Native Americans, I don't get what people want when they say this.
There should be more. Oklahoma is the last of the fuck you territories from 1800s America.
Now ill have to explain that they arent taking our country away after I took my parents to San Antonio and explained they and actually like 4 other nations were there first.
Now ill have to explain that they arent taking our country away after I took my parents to San Antonio and explained they and actually like 4 other nations were there first.
The thing I hate most about Trump's appointees siding on the better side of some of these recent rulings are their comments are pretty much always "Well it's a shame that we have to side this way, but as the law stands now we have to unless congres wants to change the law which tehy totally can and should do *nudge nudge wink wink*, writing in precedent for them to do so and be harder to challenge later.
I dont know exactly how you can change something like this down the line when it comes to literally not having jurisdiction over the land... Tho as I say that I realize the US has been pretty adept at doing just that for pretty much its whole existence.
I dont know exactly how you can change something like this down the line when it comes to literally not having jurisdiction over the land... Tho as I say that I realize the US has been pretty adept at doing just that for pretty much its whole existence.
If you're referring to what I think then yeah parts or all of Texas had at one point been Native American territories, Spanish, French, Mexican and the Republic of Texas.
The ruling is specifically talking about criminal jurisdiction. It pertain to the Major Crimes Act.
The Seminoles have land there too? I thought that tribe was Floridean. Happy about this decision though it's only a drop in the river of what they deserve.
Most Seminoles were removed to Oklahoma and that's where the largest Seminole tribe is today. A small number were able to stay in Florida and rebuild somewhat there.
What happens to the vast majority of 1.8 million people who are not Tribal members or of Native Ancestry living within the reserve lands?
The article does not mention how that works now. Whatever the answer this is interesting.
The article does not mention how that works now. Whatever the answer this is interesting.
Their day-to-day lives won't be be different. The impact of this is largely on criminal justice in addition to the strength of the argument affirming tribal sovereignty and the rarity of tribes winning in the US Supreme Court.
There are already Supreme Court decisions and laws that restrict the ability of tribal governments to govern people who are not tribal citizens, and that does not change.
So what happens if say a tribal member and a non-tribal member rob a house and are caught. Would the feds handle the criminal case for the tribal person and the state the criminal case for the non-tribal person? Would the tribal person be allowed to be a part of the criminal trail for the non-tribal person or is that not allowed now?
Do state regulations and criminal laws apply to tribal lands and tribal members or do federal criminal laws only apply now?
I'm no expert on US criminal law but it seems like it could be a mess to figure out at first.
If they perform the robbery together they will be tried separately one in state court and one in federal court.
Are you in the Siloam Springs area? I grew up in Fayetteville.
Their cases would be tried separately AFAIK.
Federal and tribal law applies to tribal citizens on tribal land, but how far state law applies to tribal citizens on tribal land varies and is typically determined by some sort of agreement between the tribes, state government and federal government. In reference to this particular case, the Creek, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Cherokee and Seminole governments, along with the Oklahoma government, had already agreed to work out those sorts of details and bring it Congress and the DoJ should the ruling go this way.
Returning the United States to those who were subjected to brutal colonization and genocide would be a damn near biblical feat. It's not going to happen any time soon, if ever. But steps need to be made to respect the people who made it their home first, and insofar very little has been done after centuries. Hopefully, today is a sign of changing times.
It would also be nice if Native Americans were given some damn respect or recognition in this country. I'm a enrolled member of the Ottawa tribe of Oklahoma (my full blood Ottawa grandpa was born in Miami, OK but moved away when he was 12 and came to WA) but was raised as a white person and really that's what I am. I'm proud of my heritage but I didn't have to deal with any of the adversity growing up. I know that I do not have the experiences that native passing kids have. I am very much aware of my white privilege and try very hard to be a good person. I grew up in a town with a large native reservation on the hill and went to school with native kids who were at significant disadvantages and discriminated against. I ended up working at the elementary school on the reservation for a few years and spent a lot of time with their families and damn it was tough to see some of the stuff I witnessed. But at the same time, I can't claim that my experience is theirs. I am so angry whenever Trump uses Pocahontas as a derogatory term and just gets a pass in the media. I wish it was something we talked about more in society.
I think the Black Hills (Mount Rushmore) were Lakota territory per a treaty until settlers discovered gold in them there hills and Congress said eff the treaty. I wonder if this Court would give that area back?
If Congress has renounced or modified that portion of the treaty then it is binding.
Edit: It turns out this was adjudicated in the 1980s.
Last edited:
This ruling doesn't change Congress' ability to say eff the treaty. What's pertinent to this case is Congress never did this.
I mean so like what we hand control of the entire US government and I hop on a boat back to England. Like I'm all for honoring treaties and giving reparations but I have never seen a clear detailed plan of what people want when they say "giving back the land". Not trying to be hyperbolic, I'm just trying to understand.
I rather that we give these native tribes into their own state so they could have representation in the federal government. Is kinda late to kick everyone else out of the country and just leave the natives alone :-/
No, that's why I called true reparations a "biblical feat". The damage has been done, and I highly doubt nationalistic Americans would be keen on leaving behind their lives out of empathy for those who were subject to cultural erasure and genocide. What we can do now is respect their autonomy and give back what is practical, whether it's land, money, resources, or telling oil corporations to fuck off when they try to get permits to build pipelines on reservations.
It's worth emphasizing that the ruling here is not about whether the US must keep its promises to the tribes, and is only sort of indirectly a vindication of their rights. The ruling is that Congress never actually repudiated one of its promises, which it could have done and could still do. And so this is unlikely to have a huge impact on day to day life in Oklahoma -- much of the authority you'd think a tribe would have over its land doesn't exist anymore because it has been explicitly stripped by Congress, and in any event if the tribes become inconvenient enough in what they insist on on their land, Congress could just pass a new law -- the only constraint here is what the broader public will let Congress do. My guess is that to the extent that there's anything jurisdictionally weird that goes beyond Indians being tried in federal courts and maybe not having to pay state taxes, Oklahoma and the tribes will come to an agreement to basically let the state handle it the way it had been.
The various tribes set their own standards and maintain their own membership rolls. I think often the requirement is that more than some fraction of your ancestry must be from that tribe, but at least a few of the Five Tribes only require that you show any ancestry at all. Children of mixed marriages can fail to qualify for membership in a tribe if they require, say, a 1/16 blood quantum and one parent is 1/16 and the other is not a member.
What did the map look like prior to this ruling?for picture reference on just how much of Oklahoma is now reservation land:
I feel like you and I are the only people who noticed the whole child rapist part of this.
I am in Siloam Springs, I've been here 5 years. We moved here to be closer to some of our family.