Your Wiki posts, which are obviously created by pro tribal supporters, tell half truths as much as the apology you posted.
Tribal sovereignty is not inherent, was never granted by Congress and there is no USC or law granting such. They enjoy such immunity as wards of the federal government. Tribal sovereignty was created by SCOTUS to tribes, as political entities, and they are considering a case now where they may allow lawsuits against tribal commercial businesses.
The Indian Civil Rights Act was an attempt to grant individual tribal members those civil rights granted in the U.S. Constitution, because the Constitution does not apply to tribal trust lands or federal territories. But SCOTUS ruled violations were to be determined by the tribal governments, which are often the very violators of their member civil rights. Without a balance of powers in government, SCOTUS rendered the Indian Civil Rights Act useless. http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/icra1968.htm
The Indian Appropriations Act of 1871 is covered rather well, but a nice addition to that would have been the Major Crimes Act passed in 1885.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Crimes_Act The Major Crimes Act (U.S. Statutes at Large, 23:385) is a law passed by the United States Congress in 1885. It places 7 major crimes under federal jurisdiction if they are committed by a Native American against another Native American in Native territory.
The act was passed in response to the Supreme Court of the United States's affirmation of tribal sovereignty in their ruling in Ex parte Crow Dog (109 U.S. 556 (1883)), wherein they overturned the federal court conviction of Brule Lakota sub-chief Crow Dog, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of principal chief Spotted Tail on the Rosebud Indian Reservation in Dakota Territory. The Court reasoned that the ability of the tribe to deal with such an offense was an attribute of tribal sovereignty that had not been specifically abrogated by an act of Congress.
The Major Crimes Act reduced the internal sovereignty of native tribes by removing their ability to try and to punish serious offenders in Indian country. The theory underlying it was that Indian tribes were not competent to deal with serious issues of crime and punishment. The constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act was upheld in United States v. Kagama (118 U.S. 375 (1886)), a case in which two Indians were prosecuted for killing another Indian on a reservation. While the Court agreed that the prosecution of major crimes did not fall within Congress's power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, it ruled that the trust relationship between the federal government and the tribes conferred on Congress both the duty and the power to regulate tribal affairs.
This left tribes with even less jurisdiction. The feds do a terrible job of enforcing laws where they do have jurisdiction and only these laws apply. If you are a tribal member and want continued benefits, you had better not oppose your government including voting for who they tell you to. On State reservations where the tribal government is the aggressor, members are even more so at the mercy of their government. Traditional Iroquois members opposed to gambling have had their homes burned.
As to prior to 1871 and your highlighted in red: The Indians owe no allegiance to a State within which their reservation may be established, and the State gives them no protection."
Your factoid lies are obvious.
Obviously omitted or not mentioned are the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 and The Nationality Act of 1940 8 USC 1401 subchapter 3 part 1 granting citizenship to all born in the U.S. as of this date and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Plus, let us not omit the July 9, 1868 14 th Amendment http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. I guess selective reading of the 14th to note the apportionment excluding Indians not taxes overlooked that they are citizens of the States.
Article 1 Section 8 does start out well but it may be a contention if this is more applicable to federal reservations. However, even the NYS treaties grant the rights to hunt and fish. Being that you probably do not live here, you would not know that.
Another half truth: "When the United States assumed the role of protector of the tribes, it neither denied nor destroyed their sovereignty. As determined in the Supreme Court case United States v. Nice (1916), U.S. citizens are subject to all U.S. laws even if they also have tribal citizenship."
Wow, talk about an OPINION based on a case U.S. v. Nice that dealt with selling liquor to a tribal member on federal trust land.
The ONLY statement that comes close to an alleged sovereignty mention is "In addition to the fact that both acts-the general one of 1887 and the special one of 1889-disclose that the tribal relation and the wardship of the Indians were not to be disturbed by the allotments and trust patents, we find that both Congress and the administrative officers of the government have proceeded upon that theory." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=241&invol=591
See how the FACTS are exposed when given the actual reference and not your cut and paste OPINION or the opinions posted on Wiki?
Yes, when the United States government formed, it replaced the British government as the other sovereignty coexisting in America with the American Indians. At that time the tribes were treated as sovereign because many still had the capability of waging war, which is why tribal affairs were part of the War Department prior to becoming the BIA.
As covered in this post, treaties are no longer made with tribes.
Article I deals with the legislative powers of Congress. Section 2 describes the powers granted to the House of Representatives. Section 2, clause 3 describes the apportionment of representatives which was amended in the 14th Amendment ratified July 9, 1868. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.
Excluding Indians not taxed was part of the amendment to exclude Indians who were not citizens and those who lived on reservations from being considered in the head count for determining Congressional districts. It was not a grant to exclude Indians from taxation, but a recognition of those that had that status. Your highlight in red giving the OPINION that suggests "that Indians need not be taxed." Or that the power granted to Congress to "regulate commerce with foreign nations…states…and with the Indian tribes. Technically, Congress has no more power over Indian nations than it does over individual states and general congressional laws are not applicable to them."
That hogwash OPINION that congressional laws are not applicable to them was obviously posted by a racist. The arguments based on just such laws are contrary to the poster's arguments the cut and paste post you made.
Well that is obviously not the case as states had such authority to make treaties prior to joining the Union. As the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua recognized all prior State Treaties as valid. Unfortunately the attorneys miss-representing the State and counties never argued those treaties except in the City of Sherrill case. SCOTUS asked the attorneys representing Sherrill why they had never heard of the Treaty of Ft. Schuyler before. The obvious answer would have been because the attorneys miss-representing the State and counties would have had their money mill diminished.
As to How many disadvantaged indigenous minorities do you suspect were housed, fed, clothed, treated, educated and trained with that money? As to the $1.8 billion in NYS tax credits: Aside from what the purpose was, that is money not collected, not funds available for those who pay no taxes.
NYS politics is corrupt and tax breaks for brownfield and empire zones have always been scams. As pointed out in the opinion article you linked only 1% of the corporations will benefit and that is likely do to their buying the politicians here (there - hah).
As to the discussion on indigenous people and the UN: that is really all Hollywood hoopla and US laws do not really apply except as a minority status. Even Halbritter's tribal news makes this clear. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.co...-experts-152114 Laws Needed to Enforce U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Legal Experts Carol Berry 11/7/13
Consent is not always legally binding, Washburn continued, and FPIC "needs to be incorporated into U.S. laws," a position echoed by other speakers at the daylong conference, held on the first day of Native American Heritage Month, November 1.
Speakers include tribal government supporters, which of course are not members of the UN. If Congress were to pass a law excepting a race, it would be declared unconstitutional because equality under the law is only granted subterfuge by applying political status to tribes.