Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#141

Post by catalogia »

charlesu wrote: post #82
fermienrico wrote: post #16

Can someone explain why America has reservations? From what I know, Native Indians had this land almost 2+ centuries ago. Why have a special, looks like an autonomous, region and special treatment to people that are a few generations down from when this happened? How far back into the history should we go?

The US government was making treaties with Native American tribes as recently as 1871. One hundred and fifty years ago isn’t long at all. It’s two lifetimes. It’s recent enough for someone to have known someone who was alive then.

> The US government was making treaties with Native American tribes as recently as 1871.

Even later than that I think? The government was fighting Geronimo in the 1880s, and my understanding is there was some intermittent fighting as late as the 1920s. I'm not sure about treaties specifically though.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#142

Post by nostromo »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #128

"We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so." As with so many controversial court rulings like the ACA mandate case, our courts keep getting put into the decision because of the massive failure that congress is. Congress should either fulfill the promise or not, or whatever. instead the judicial bodies end up making legal judgements with big ramifcations that largely should b…

If congress doesn't change something, then that means they have determined no change is necessary.

That isn't an invitation for the executive branch (or judiciary) to overreach.

In theory congress could go years without passing a single law, and that would be fine. It would signal that the current laws are sufficient.

(As an aside, congress has ceded much of it's lawmaking authority to federal agencies anyway -- so even if they didn't pass any new laws, the legal code will still change every year.)

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#143

Post by IncRnd »

nemothekid wrote: post #37
fermienrico wrote: post #16

Can someone explain why America has reservations? From what I know, Native Indians had this land almost 2+ centuries ago. Why have a special, looks like an autonomous, region and special treatment to people that are a few generations down from when this happened? How far back into the history should we go?

Can someone explain why America has reservations? As I understand it, it's not "special" status and more a result of the laws that were put into place when the land was "obtained" from Native Americans. Renegading on those treaties would be no different than the government repossessing your generations-owned land because "you shouldn't get special treatment because your great grandfather bought this land for $3".

A reservation is not just land. A reservation is Tribal Land of a sovereign nation. This is touched upon in the article.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#144

Post by jfengel »

pantaloony wrote: post #88
asdf21 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's obviously mocking the use of the word... can people here not understand context?

From long observation: no, one thing HN is remarkably bad at, even compared to the rest of the web(!), is taking context into account. Usually that kind of thing is deliberate trolling when it happens elsewhere, but here I can never tell. It seems so sincere.

It's pretty clear to me that it was sarcastic, but sarcasm reads really badly on the Internet. In open forums, it's best avoided -- there are just too many ways for it to go wrong. (Especially when not everybody is a native speaker, which makes sarcasm even harder to recognize.)

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#145

Post by monocasa »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #132
monocasa wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tribes have their own mechanisms for identifying citizens like any other jus sanguinis nationality. The specifics depend on the tribe in question.

How does this work with government? Or let's go into one specific question, can I start my own tribe?

Just like it does for any other foreign citizenship.

Getting your tribe you just started recognized without any of the treaties in place is about the same level of effort as getting your new country recognized. I don't see TSA accepting Sealand passports.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#147

Post by [deleted] »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #132
monocasa wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tribes have their own mechanisms for identifying citizens like any other jus sanguinis nationality. The specifics depend on the tribe in question.

How does this work with government? Or let's go into one specific question, can I start my own tribe?

[deleted]

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#148

Post by seebetter »

evgen wrote: post #97
abeppu wrote: post #57

> The ruling voided McGirt’s sentence of 1,000 years in prison but he could face a new trial in federal court rather than state court. Not changed by this ruling, but it strikes me as really odd that you can sentence someone to prison for that long, or that you would bother. Why not just say life in prison? If your state is 103 years old, saying anything about the next 1000 years seems ... lacking in credibility.

It is perverse, but there is a method to the madness. Some sentencing mitigations or parole decisions are based upon length of sentence. Someone who is given a 20 year sentence may be eligible for parole when, for example, 1/4 of the sentence has been served. By setting the sentence to a ridiculous length it is effectively denying any possibility for parole without directly stating that the sentence is to served with…

They already do this in LA. Get sentenced to 120 days in jail but due to overcrowding you’d do 5-10 days in jail.

Soon local politicians will require you only to do 1% of jail time so you’ll be sentenced to a 100 years in jail for a misdemeanor. This already exists in the California bail system where you pay 1% of astronomically high bails (eg $60,000 bail for 1st time misdemeanor, like if they change a court date and fail to inform you).

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#149

Post by tehjoker »

Seems like all they did was say the feds get to punish native americans rather than state officials. Where's the sovereignty?

Nearly all US presidents, including George Washington, led genocidal campaigns that burned down entire towns or otherwise committed crimes against humanity in the name of expanding the colonial lands of settlers.

Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation

#150

Post by rootusrootus »

newacct583 wrote: post #51
bitminer wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I correct in thinking that this is about authority, not (land) title over half of Oklahoma?

Yes. The specific case was about a murder conviction overturned because the Oklahoma county court didn't have jurisdiction over tribal land.

> didn't have jurisdiction over tribal land

Over native americans on tribal land. The state still has authority over everyone else. And the tribal police don't have authority over them. It's convoluted.

Post reply on HN