>On Mon, 7 Feb 1994 lawnet-po.law.uiowa.edu!RCLINTON writes:
>> As presently drafted S. 1021 (NAFERA) would cover members of terminated
>> tribes, whether terminated by Congressional or administrative action
>> (although the latter concept is legally problematic).
> So what you're saying in plain english then is that tribes like
> the Chinook who were terminated by an unlawful adminstrative order can in
> NO WAY be helped by NAFERA.
> Can you please suggest to your collegues drafting the bill that
> they include the statement, "and includes tribess who were terminated
> through administrative action..."
NO! That is not what I am saying. By suggesting that "as presently
drafted S 1021 (NAFERA) would cover members of terminated tribes" I was
suggesting, I thought in plain English, that administratively terminated
tribes were already covered by the plain language of the bill and that no
further legislative drafting change is required to accomplish that result.
Such coverage, however, does not mean that such tribes are recognized for
ALL federal program purposes, just that they are covered for purposes of
NAFERA.
******************************************************************************
Robert N. Clinton INTERNET: rclinton@lawnet-po.law.uiowa.edu
Wiley B. Rutledge Professor of Law
University of Iowa College of Law
Boyd Law Building
Iowa City, IA 52242
SYSOP of the IOWA INDIAN DEFENSE NETWORK
(319) 335-9032 (voice) A Computer Bulletin Board for Indian Rights
(319) 335-9019 (FAX) (319) 335-9838 (data -- 2400,N,8,1)
*******************************************************************************