 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
What else was Bush supposed to say on the subject except to state the definition?
|
Which he didn't even do. He just repeated the word several times in different phrases that was just a rehash of the question that was asked. No "definition" of a word involves just repeating the word over and over.
He clearly didn't have a clue as to what the questioner was asking. And on top of that, his cluelessness led him to offend Indian tribes with his statement that sovereignty was "given." Duhhhh.
And, I'll add, that you're wrong about the sovereignty issue being the "same." That was the entire point of that part of the UNITY meeting and the issues being raised--a changing view of Native American sovereignty over their lands based on recent conflicts over things like casino building, conflicts over the administration of health services in tribal lands, etc. So it is a relevant question, because many tribes are upset and believe their sovereignty has been trampled by the federal government.
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 22-04-2005 at 22:58
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
Damn...he is such a ****ing numbskull...
Drake, why would you even try to defend the guy? It's obvious he's a complete muppet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Conservatives are trying to strip Indian nations of their sovreignty, which is nothing really new. Theoretically, the Nations and the Federal government are equals, but the reality is quite different. |
Well, not exactly. Native Sovereign Nation status was never intended to grant Indians equal status to the United States. It was designed to give something analogous to the rights of a state to specific Indian bands, with sovereignty having a similar meaning to that of state sovereignty in our Constitutional framework, without the ignorant heathen savages actually having full rights or responsibilities attendant with statehood.
NSN's are subject to Federal law in a large number of areas, and have no more right than do states to the prerogatives of a true sovereign nation - no diplomatic recognition, no rights to conduct foreign or military policy, no specific protections for citizens on "foreign" soil, legal obligations of individual members to the United States, etc. (even as citizens by the early 20th century)
Most of the real issues with native sovereignty have come about due to state and local usurpation of sovereignty, which has quite often been upheld by Federal courts. The Feds have always had significant legal inroads and abilities to limit native sovereignty, but it's a recent phenomena (brought by whites smelling a different kind of gold in Indian lands) for states to actually want to interfere. Historically, Indians were broke, so the states couldn't care less. Now in a lot of areas (including California, as maybe the worst given the fates of California bands and tribes), the states want to muscle in on the Indians over money.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Riesstiu IV
|
|
Anybody who insults Bush hates Freedom.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-04-2005 10:57
.
|