
After 184 years, Cherokees seek House delegate seat promised in treaty - new_guy
https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/184-years-cherokees-seek-house-delegate-seat-promised-treaty
======
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Back when the treaty signed, Native Americans did not have the right to vote
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_civil_rights#V...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_civil_rights#Voting))
thus a delegate would have been the only way for Native Americans to have a
voice in Congress. This is the same with the other delegates, who all
represent places that do not otherwise have representation in Congress.

Now Native Americans all have the right to vote, and thus have a voice in
Congress.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

~~~
gscott
Many tribal lands don't have street addresses and in some states you have to
have a residence with an address to vote.

~~~
devicetray0
Is there a reason why they don't have a street address in 2019? Do they not
want them or is it funding or something else?

~~~
goodcanadian
Not native American, but grew up in a rural area (in Canada). My parents only
got a "street address" a couple of years ago. There is a land location system
going back over a century, but basically no one who didn't live on a farm new
how to interpret it (say 98% of the population), and so it was basically
useless as an address. The new "street address" is actually based on the land
location, but it is formatted like a street address (house number, road name)
rather than specifying quarter, section, township, range, meridian. Throughout
my childhood, we usually just used a postal address, but in the last couple of
decades, bank officials and the like have gotten more and more insistent on a
physical address which we were basically unable to provide.

~~~
abandonliberty
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Land_Survey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Land_Survey)

------
ogou
Here is a photo of the Cherokee Nation capital building, preserved at New
Echota, Georgia. [https://joshuacurry.com/american-way/cherokee-capitol-new-
ec...](https://joshuacurry.com/american-way/cherokee-capitol-new-echota-north-
georgia) This was once the epicenter of the Cherokee government which
organized to trade with the colonies. It was taken by a group of 20 non-
natives who signed the treaty of New Echota without native consent and
enforced by Andrew Jackson. This particular action began the "Trail of Tears".
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_New_Echota](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_New_Echota)

------
mcthrowaway123z
Perhaps we should just grant statehood to the various Indian nations so they
may be formally admitted into this republic. I am not a fan of giving
representation to alien nations. I'm not sure our courts have legal
jurisdiction over such agreements so long as they are extra-national, so there
may be no way to enforce it.

~~~
gatherhunterer
Are you referring to the Cherokee Nation as alien, meaning that the US is the
native nation? How warped a world view one must have to say something like
that with no sense of irony.

~~~
tathougies
Are you claiming that the Cherokee nation is subject to the US government?
That's arguing in favor of a form of colonialism. It is your worldview that is
warped. The Cherokee (and any other native nation wanting their land back) are
best served by granting them status as fully sovereign individual nations, as
alien to the United States as the United Kingdom and Canada. Can you imagine
if we tried to impose our law on Canada? Why then should we allow other
nations which ought to enjoy sovereignty to remain subject to the United
States?

If, after being recognized as a separate nation by the United States, they
would like to seek entrance to the Union as a separate state, then they can
petition Congress for that right, as any other sovereign nation is allowed to
do.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
We do impose our laws on the tribes, right? I mean, they have their own
criminal courts and everything, but they are limited in their ability to mete
out punishment. As far as I understand, they cannot form treaties with other
nations. They can't raise armies. States can compel establishments within
native american tribal territories to collect sales taxes on non-native
people.

I don't think it's technically correct to say that they are _subjects_ of the
US government. The US doesn't really have subjects at all, right? We have
citizens, and Native Americans are citizens of the United States. But it is
likewise incorrect to say they are sovereign, at least as we typically think
of national sovereignty.

Please help me correct any misunderstandings.

~~~
tathougies
> I mean, they have their own criminal courts and everything, but they are
> limited in their ability to mete out punishment. As far as I understand,
> they cannot form treaties with other nations. They can't raise armies.
> States can compel establishments within native american tribal territories
> to collect sales taxes on non-native people.

Yes, that is why I made the point that I think they would be best served by
granting them fully sovereign status. You can't be granted sovereign status if
you're already sovereign. The USA maintains its authority over the cherokee in
the same way it maintains authority over certain aspects of the states.

> The US doesn't really have subjects at all, right? We have citizens

Citizens of the US are subject to the laws of the United States. To be subject
to a law means that you must follow it under penalty of legal proceedings.

> But it is likewise incorrect to say they are sovereign, at least as we
> typically think of national sovereignty.

This is an overly simplistic view of sovereignty. Per the Constitution, the
individual 50 states are fully sovereign. They have given up some sovereignty
to the federal government, in certain matters, such as international
relations. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that, according to US
federal law, they are to be treated as sovereign entities. This shared
sovereignty is the basis of American federalism. The tribes operate under a
similar arrangement. The Constitution allows the federal government to enter
into treaties with the Indians as if they are foreign governments. The current
US policy is to grant them 'tribal sovereignty' which is a half sovereignty
enjoyed by the states. However, unlike the states, where they chose
deliberately to give up their sovereignty to become part of the United States,
the tribes were forced to sign treaties, forcibly uprooted, forcibly
slaughtered, etc.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
> Per the Constitution, the individual 50 states are fully sovereign.

As far as I can find, the constitution does not use the word "sovereign." Can
you point me to which clause you're referring to? It's also worth noting that
whatever the constitution says, the states are de facto less independent than
many envisioned at the turn of the 19th century.

------
hurrdurr2
I haven't been to the Cherokee reservation, but have been to a couple of
reservations for smaller tribes.

They were universally sad/depressing places. Usually they have one central
liquor store/"market" with drunk people hanging out in front. Dirty and
dilapidated buildings...lots of natives suffering from diabetes and obesity.

What this country did and continues to do to the natives contrasts sharply
with how we preach "human rights" and such to the rest of the world.

~~~
my_usernam3
> and continues to do to the natives

What is it that we are doing now (other than inflammatory sport team names)?
I'm pretty naive on this topic, so I don't mean this as an attack, but as a
legitimate question.

~~~
Frondo
I feel like someone else can do a better job with a comprehensive list, but I
can give an anecdote from my experience.

A few years ago I sat in on a tribal economic development forum in one of the
western states. Not a tribal member, just an invited guest.

One of the issues one of the tribes had was: they don't have water rights to
the water that supplies one of their towns. The water comes from their land,
but they're required by a 1920s-era local ordinance to sell it to a
neighboring town, that then sells it back to them. They want that local
ordinance removed, so they aren't paying the neighboring town for, literally,
their own water.

The neighboring town isn't filtering it, isn't processing it, it's just
enjoying the largesse of some local politician nearly a hundred years ago,
writing a law that rips off the tribe.

They just want the ordinance removed. They just want to have their water at
extraction cost.

This was one 15-minute section in a day-long conference. This was the "rapid
fire" petitions to representatives from state government.

Next section: In a city somewhere else in the state, someone's building a
police station. The contract is out for public bid, but the contracting
language said "Bidders must reside in our county, with zip codes xxxx, yyyy,
zzzz excluded from bidding." The excluded zip codes corresponded exactly to
where the reservation land lay.

The tribe was there, asking for the contracting language to be changed, so
that they could merely submit a bid for one of their construction companies --
not that they wanted any special treatment, but they literally just wanted to
be treated like any other zip code in the county.

That was another 15 minute section in the rapid-fire requests.

All day long like that.

~~~
hurrdurr2
Wow... thanks for sharing your story. I always thought it was mainly the feds
being completely inept when it came to Indian Affairs but I guess it's not
surprising the local governments are the same way.

~~~
vkou
Not inept, just malicious and corrupt.

------
enjoyyourlife
According to [https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/state-and-regional/citing-
tr...](https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/state-and-regional/citing-treaties-
cherokees-call-on-congress-to-seat-delegate-
from/article_9da9a5d4-69a1-52d8-bad6-beea75a2e17e.html) the delegate might not
be able to vote

~~~
Jtsummers
There's no "might not be able to vote", they would not be able to vote, the
position is a non-voting delegate.

~~~
Bluestrike2
Delegates do, however, have floor privileges, the right to sit on committees
and vote with them, and the right to vote on legislation. Under the current
House rules for the 116th Congress, delegates can also vote with the Committee
of the Whole,[0] though if theirs is the deciding vote on a measure, a new
vote takes place without them. For the past few decades, that privilege--such
as it is--gets restored or removed depending on which party controls the
House. In spite of their non-voting status, delegates do have at least some
power and influence in the House that can be leveraged on behalf of their
constituents.

0\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_the_Whole_(United...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_the_Whole_\(United_States_House_of_Representatives\))

~~~
stordoff
> though if theirs is the deciding vote on a measure, a new vote takes place
> without them

Doesn't this mean they effectively can't vote? It seems they can only vote on
things that would have passed (or been rejected anyway.

------
propter_hoc
This is fascinating. Good for them in researching their historical rights. I
hope they succeed - it will only help Congress to have their views
represented.

------
protomyth
I would imagine that Carpenter v. Murphy might end up being a bit of an
indicator on which way this will end up getting litigated.

~~~
alteria
You beat me to it! Carpenter is a very interesting case that I was following
last term.

If you're unfamiliar, the case is about the disputed abolishment of certain
reservations in Oklahoma. If the court rules that the reservations were never
actually abolished, among other things, a large portion of Oklahoma would
actually be on reservation lands.

~~~
beerandt
This is the Roberts court; regardless of who wins, the ruling will be, IMHO,
an extremely narrow one. Don't expect any land titles to change hands.

~~~
alteria
Definitely agree. Roberts court aside, I remember during oral argument some
justices being very uncomfortable with the ramifications of a strong ruling on
either side.

------
4ntonius8lock
Am I the only one that finds the article strange?

I mean: "Most times, they can’t vote on the House floor..." \- In the quoted
text 'they' refers to the delegate that the Cherokee nation would get.

So they are fighting for a delegate with no floor voting power.

Then the article seems to conclude: "...the new delegate would give extra
weight to Cherokee Nation citizens’ votes — a so-called “super vote.”

How can these two be? IANAL, so maybe someone with a legal background has some
insight?

~~~
crooked-v
Delegates can't take part in the final floor vote on bills, but they can be
part of committee votes before that, including (depending on the rules for
that particular Congressional session) 'Committee of the Whole' votes when the
entire House votes on non-final-bill matters.

~~~
4ntonius8lock
Ok. But does that really carry weight?

I mean, the way we treat our territories makes me think it doesn't. But I
could be wrong.

~~~
crooked-v
It doesn't carry a lot of weight, but it's better than nothing.

------
GreaterFool
> since it would cover geographical territory that’s already part of two
> congressional districts

Correct me if I'm wrong but these districts can be created, destroyed or
redrawn practically at a whim, no? I recall some ramblings that Democrats
might remove the district in which AOC runs because they don't like her.

Don't know much about this issue just thinking it's a rather weak excuse.

------
hart_russell
I'm no bleeding heart SJW, but holy hell do the native people deserve some
type of representation in our govt. The atrocities committed against them were
unconscionable.

~~~
tathougies
Actually, we need to do one of two things:

(1) Treat the natives like any other citizen, so no special land reservations
etc, or

(2) Grant them completely separate sovereign nation status and end this
ridiculous quasi-sovereign state of affairs we find ourselves in. No person
deserves special rights or recognition because their grandfather (or
grandmother) was of a certain race. That is antithetical to a free society.
The easy solution here is to cede all land back to them, and establish proper
international relations.

Understandably, natives want their own land. That's great, but they can't get
that if there's another government in their way. Understandably, states want
full sovereignty over their own land, but they can't get that if there exist
quasi-nations in the way. The obvious solution is to allow them actual self
governance.

~~~
bdamm
That viewpoint is needlessly absolutist. There's obviously no way that native
nations could even afford to negotiate with the US Federal Government. That
was true 184 years ago, and it's still true now. At the same time these people
do deserve special treatment, being the subjects of systemic oppression that
continues to this very day. If we really believe that native Americans are
valuable as native Americans (and I think that they are) then we need to
provide governance structure that can work for them.

It's yet more evidence, as if more was needed, that the idea of a "melting
pot" is fundamentally the wrong way to think about multiculturalism.

~~~
tathougies
> If we really believe that native Americans are valuable as native Americans
> (and I think that they are) then we need to provide governance structure
> that can work for them.

An individual who is a native american is valuable because they are a human.
Their race does not factor into their worth, thank goodness. We need to
provide governance capable of working for the 300(400?) million people that
call the United States home. None of those people should get outsized
consideration, and especially none for their race.

No nation can actually afford to negotiate with the US federal government as
equals. Perhaps China and Russia are two exceptions. My proposed nations would
nevertheless enjoy the same sovereignty that many other nations enjoy. If they
would like US help, they can ask for protectorate status (like the Mariana
islands), and the US should comply, because we should be friends with our
neighboring countries, especially what would functionally be ex-colonies. The
US needs to wash its hands of this kind of colonialism now, or it will fester
and get much much worse.

~~~
mikepurvis
The point of reconciliation/reparations is acknowledging that have been long-
standing systemic oppression of these groups— it isn't a matter of just
bucking up and working hard when you're subject to multi-generational trauma.
I don't know as much about the US situation, but in Canada there was a long
period of intentional attempted cultural genocide, where indigenous kids were
literally ripped from their parents' arms and sent to far off boarding schools
and taught to behave white. That would be bad enough if it wasn't also an
environment with almost no oversight that led to rampant other abuses,
including sexual.

And this wasn't really all that long ago— the last of these residential
schools didn't close until 1996.

If you're interested in more about this, APTN did a terrific series called
First Contact, which featured everyday Canadians with neutral-to-negative
feelings about indigenous people touring the country and learning first hand
about it:

[https://aptn.ca/firstcontact/video/season-1/](https://aptn.ca/firstcontact/video/season-1/)

~~~
tathougies
I acknowledge there has been long-standing government oppression of these
groups. In response, I suggest that these groups no longer be subject to the
government that oppressed them. When a parent is mean to a child, a child
deserves its parents apology. When a friend is mean to a friend, they won't be
friends anymore. In a partnership of equals, the behavior you described would
result in the equals separating their interests and continuing on with their
existence, not continued apologies starting again the cycle of abuse.

~~~
kej
>In response, I suggest that these groups no longer be subject to the
government that oppressed them.

I'm curious what your experience is with historically oppressed populations. A
lot of your comments in this thread come off, frankly, as overly simplistic
and as ignoring the very real lasting effects historical oppression can have
in the present.

To use your analogy: if your friend forcibly removes you from your house and
makes you live in a cardboard box in the alley, ruling the alley and not being
friends anymore is hardly a just resolution.

~~~
tathougies
I mean, I'm a minority in America from a historically oppressed faction in my
parent's country. I have experienced racism first hand from peers, as well as
systematic racism from government agents. So my experience with 'historically
oppressed' populations is quite broad, and informs my belief that the first
step to reconciliation between an oppressing group and the oppressed is that
the oppressed group gets to be treated as absolute equals. You seem to want to
treat them paternalistically. As a current father, I can tell you that the
relationship between me and my child is not one of equals.

> To use your analogy: if your friend forcibly removes you from your house and
> makes you live in a cardboard box in the alley, ruling the alley and not
> being friends anymore is hardly a just resolution.

Exactly. This is what has happened to the Native Americans. The US removed
them from their home and is making them live in a cardboard box (reservations)
in an alley (the nation of America) that is ruled by the federal government. I
advocate carving out the cardboard boxes from the alley's jurisdiction,
allowing the box occupants to leave and make deals with, purchase goods from
and sell goods to other neighbors on neighboring streets. You want to simply
promise to be a nicer alley owner as long as they stay in their boxes.

~~~
kej
My belief is that if someone is wronged, they deserve to be made whole. If
they are systematically wronged, then the just thing to do is to change the
system to make them whole. If you tilt the scales in one direction for
generations, and then suddenly cry "everyone is equal, no more favoring
anyone", you're not actually treating people equally. You're papering over
real inequality and pretending it doesn't exist.

>I advocate carving out the cardboard boxes from the alley's jurisdiction...
You want to simply promise to be a nicer alley owner as long as they stay in
their boxes.

Not at all. I want to help them build a new house.

~~~
tathougies
> I want to help them build a new house.

Sure, and you can then agree with me that the first step in building a house
for someone on land you own is to give them title to that section of land.
Then you get to help them build. Otherwise, you're just holding them hostage.

> My belief is that if someone is wronged, they deserve to be made whole

You can't make someone whole after killing off all their ancestors. The US has
done undoubted wrong. You can't fix it. It's only pride that makes you think
that the government is in any way capable of making this whole. Leave that to
God, man can't do it.

------
tathougies
We need to end special treatment under the law for any race, white or red or
whatever. No race should get special treatment in the United States. This
country should welcome immigrants. If they don't want to be part of it, we
should allow them to leave peacefully. That is the most sensible policy.

~~~
mjevans
You've made three distinct points which might have been better offered split
up:

> We need to end special treatment under the law for any race, white or red or
> whatever. No race should get special treatment in the United States.

While I prefer the phrasing "Nobody should get special treatment." I think
most agree with this.

> This country should welcome immigrants.

I think many agree with this; however in the historical context we're all
immigrants here. The Cherokees having crossed some land/sea bridge much longer
ago, and Europeans and others arriving within the last 600 years. Also,
defining which country you're talking about is crucial. I'm assuming you mean
The United States, but a 'Cherokee nation' exists/existed too.

> If they don't want to be part of it, we should allow them to leave
> peacefully. That is the most sensible policy.

Leave for where, also Re: my paragraph above, didn't the sea-bound settlers
arrive and take over the park they were living in?

~~~
tathougies
> I'm assuming you mean The United States, but a 'Cherokee nation'
> exists/existed too.

So I actually mean the Cherokee nation. Their platform of excluding non-
Cherokee from the nation is akin to the white supremacists of America not
wanting non-whites to live in America. If the nation ends up getting its
freedom (as I think they should), that sovereign state ought to be accepting
of migrants, as the current government of the United States ought to be as
well.

> Leave for where, also Re: my paragraph above, didn't the sea-bound settlers
> arrive and take over the park they were living in?

As espoused elsewhere, I am proposing that the currently defined indian
reservations (with their boundaries set by treaty with the United States) be
given the opportunity to leave the Union, and form independent sovereign
states. I am not asking anyone to physically 'move', by ship, or car, or
plane. I am referring to a figurative leaving -- letting the land leave the
sovereignty of the United States and its member states.

------
techntoke
What is up with all the Native American casinos?

~~~
jcranmer
To summarize, the various Native American reservations are generally regarded
as having tribal law apply to them instead of state law, which means that they
are generally exempt from state regulations. If states don't permit gambling
within their borders, a reservation providing the gambling instead tends to be
an easy way for the reservation to make money, since they have no nearby
casinos to compete with.

------
pimmen
I honestly cannot see how one can support the electoral college and not
support that the Cherokee get their special representation in Congress as
well.

At least, if the argument for the electoral college used is the oft repeated
”people from the more populous states would trample over the less populous
states”. Why are people from sparsely populated states a minority that has to
be treated like a special snowflake, lest their rights be violated by the more
populous ones, but minorities like Native Americans who have suffered
centuries of oppression are not? Especially when you can move from one state
to another but you cannot stop being Native American.

------
Consultant32452
My suggestion is enough out of the box that many people will think I'm being
sarcastic, but I'm not. This is a great idea. I think we should give out House
seats to other groups who have been historically disadvantaged. Maybe we could
have a few House members that only blacks get to vote for. It might be harder
to identify LGBT people, but they could get one too as far as I'm concerned.
It could be time limited, like maybe for 50 years or something. But it could
fit under the reparations umbrella in a way that might be more tasteful to
voters than just cutting a check to people.

~~~
maxlybbert
In “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress,” one of the main characters tries to slow
down the process of writing a constitution by giving the delegates too many
choices. He starts by disparaging the most normal way of giving out
representatives, with a statement along the lines of “surely where a man lives
is the least interesting thing about him.” He then suggests, for instance,
that trade unions be allowed to choose representatives.

I don’t think it’s actually workable, but I have to admit that Heinlein has a
point: if you ask me to say something about myself, I never start with “I live
in X neighborhood.” Why is my House district based on where I live instead of
something more relevant?

The answer, of course, is that geographic representation is easy to understand
and administer. But it also influences the kind of proposals my representative
is willing to support or oppose. There are plenty of issues that I care about
but my neighbors don’t, and my representative has no incentive to take a stand
on those things.

