Really? I didn't hear that it was ruled unconstitutional...actually, I
think it wasn't. You are talking about the Rosts and Adams case aren't you?
I spoke with an ICWA lawyer about this case today. What they did was, at
least how it was explained to me, was they created a criteria to be
considered Indian. The biological father lost the case, because the courts
didn't feel he was Indian enough so then the ICWA didn't apply. If they
would have considered him to be Indian, then the ICWA would have applied
and he would have won the case. The criteria was something like you had to
participate in Tribal Politics, take part in religious ceremonies on a
regular basis, read Indian newspapers, etc. Now as far as I know, not one
white person lost a case, because they weren't "white" enough. Hopefully,
the case will be appealed to the California Supreme Court.
> Between this case and the recent 8th Circuit decison which found part
> of that part of the IRA is unconstitutional (hopefully we'll get a
> re-hearing en banc and have this ruling overruled), the theories and
> policies on which Indian Law is built are seriously being overlooked
> and as a result the courts are doing a slash & burn expedition through
> Indian law.
I compeletly agree with this. I'm starting a letter writing campaign to
protest the proposed amendment to the ICWA made by Congresswoman Pryce, and
I sent the note to Natchat. Should I send it here too? I will have all the
information posted on my Web page including e-mail addresses for the
members of the subcommittee and Congresswoman Pryce. My e-mail address is:
http://rainbow.rmii.com/~fouche
>
> Brian Z.
In Lak'ech Yelir,
Marie Fouche - fouche@rmii.com
http://rainbow.rmii.com/~fouche. If that doesn't work, please try
http://www.rmii.com/~fouche - The Lost Bird Page discusses the contentious
issue of American Indian adoptions.