RCLINTON@lawnet-po.law.uiowa.edu (Robert Clinton) writes:
>Under federal Indian law all tribes, not just the Iroqouis, are viewed as
>sovereign, but, unfortunately, that has meant less and less in recent
>years when you and I would agree (I suppose) that it should mean more and
>more in this era which otherwise has been one of decolonization. The
>question is not whether or not tribes are sovereign, it is, rather, what
>that sovereignty means and how the tribes chose to exercise it.
In "theory", all tribes (Nations) are considered sovereign. In practice,
Iroquois are treated as sovereign. With the lack of BIA, or IHS on the
reservations, this implies a "hand-off" approach of the U.S. concerning
Iroquois (this is mainly due to the Treaty of Canadagua 1794 - Article 5).
In TUSCARORA NATION vs. NEW YORK STATE (1959?) the Supreme Court decided that
the Tuscarora Nation, as part of the Six Nations, was not entitled to federal
protection, or ANY federal benefits, because the United States did not hold
their land in "trust"...esentially meaning, that the Six Nations hold title to
their own land.
Mr. Clinton, can you please explain to me WHY the Treaty of Canadagua is
honored to the point of "no relationship" while others have been broken?
According to Article 5 of the Treaty, the federal government could feasibly
disallow trading, and require Haudenosaunee passport for enterence into the
United States - which Haudenosaunee passports are recognized by the United
Nations.
Also, according to TUSCARORA v NEW YORK STATE, couldn't the federal government
be giving its permission to Iroquois nations to form their own army, since the
case involved "state invasion"?
Esentially, the only relationship the the Haudenosanee has with the federal
government is in the dispute of land claim cases against New York. This is also
a reason that Haudenosaunee are seeking representation in the United
Nations...because the U.S. is too biased in such matters.
So, Mr. Clinton, there are two things unresolved in this that you may be able
to shed light on: 1) in both "theory" and practice, aren't the Haudenosaunee
sovereign to a much higher "degree" than other Indian Nations (at least in the
eyes of the U.S.), and 2) why is Article 5 of the Treaty of Canadagua held so
tightly by the U.S. (gaurunteeingboth the land and freedom of governmental
interfereance to the Iroquois), while other treaties are broken?
I am doing a study on this, and trying to determine if the United States will
eventually break the Treaty of Canadagua of 1794, or if the U.S. will
eventually grant higher "degrees" of sovereignty to the western nations, using
Haudenosaunee as example. I hate to use "degrees of sovereignty", but can find
no other explaination.
N'yawah
Kayoshk Kayoshk@polaris.unm.edu
Turtle Clan Kayoshk@bootes.unm.edu
Seneca Nation (Cattaraugus)
Haudenosaunee