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

701–710 of 1001 posts

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

#701

Post by kelnos »

baddox wrote: post #639
kelnos wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you on the legal aspects, but the mind-bending bit is that the neighbor's actions -- at the time -- were not legal (because no, it is not legal to build structures on someone else's property without their permission), but because it was left to sit that way for some period of time, the result of those actions -- a de facto redrawing of property lines -- has become the new legal status. Which, honestly, s…

> because it was left to sit that way for some period of time, the result of those actions -- a de facto redrawing of property lines -- has become the new legal status Yes, the point is there is a specific law that says this, and it's really not that unreasonable, since precise property boundaries are always ultimately conventional.

Property boundaries affect home value, though. The parent who brought this up bought a house with the understanding that he would have X square feet of land, but it turns out, due to this weird situation, he only has some Y (< X) square feet. Presumably he might have wanted to pay less for that.

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

#702

Post by webmaven »

mcv wrote: post #598
jki275 wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The filibuster forces consensus. It's hard to get a ten vote majority if you're arguing strictly along party lines.

The real problem is that there are just two parties that hate each other to the core. In a multi-party system, parties would be forced to compromise and find agreement with other parties, and this would become normal. So get rid of congressional districts and instead fill the House according to proportional representation.

You don't need to go that far, just getting rid of gerrymandering (and thus, "safe" seats) would accomplish much the same in terms of forcing candidates to appeal to a broader constituency.

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

#703

Post by gonzo41 »

pdonis wrote: post #647
CDRdude wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adverse possession is a specific thing in some jurisdictions where if you visibly and openly occupy a piece of land for long enough without a challenge from the original owner, it becomes your property and the original owner loses it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

> Adverse possession is a specific thing I know what adverse possession is. But there are specific conditions attached to it, which will depend on the particular statute in effect in the particular jurisdiction. For example, if the poster I responded to were to tell in court the exact story he told here--"I didn't realize the fence was on my property until I had a survey done, now I realize it and I'm bringing a chal…

I think the court would be very favorable to the poster. If only because adverse possession is not the sort of law that doesn't scan well with modern times. I know that's not how all law works but if that didnt work I'd go slip in his driveway during winter and bury him in frivolous lawsuits until the end of time.

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

#704

Post by Mangalor »

robertlagrant wrote: post #325
Mangalor wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean if we're getting into it, "white man" basically genocided their whole population with disease. The Native Americans never did anything nearly so heinous.

I don't think accidental genocide is a thing.

Genocide, accidental or not, is surely still a thing.

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

#705

Post by kelnos »

vlovich123 wrote: post #643
kelnos wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you on the legal aspects, but the mind-bending bit is that the neighbor's actions -- at the time -- were not legal (because no, it is not legal to build structures on someone else's property without their permission), but because it was left to sit that way for some period of time, the result of those actions -- a de facto redrawing of property lines -- has become the new legal status. Which, honestly, s…

There are statutes of limitations on crimes.

Sure, I'm not saying that it's reasonable to prosecute the neighbor for the prior act of building on someone else's land (though I'm not sure that's a crime; at worst I expect it'd be a form of trespassing, but would otherwise be a civil matter). I'm just noting the weirdness that the legal status of the property was changed through an initially illegal act.

But I guess on second thought maybe it's not that weird? Like if I buy stolen property from someone, and I have no idea that it's stolen, and the original owner comes along wanting it back, it's actually now legally mine, and I'm under no obligation to give it back.

But that's not exactly the same, because in this case the original owner has been harmed, but making the original owner whole would then harm me (an innocent bystander). In the case of the real property issue, "giving back" the land would only harm the person who "stole" it in the first place.

However! If the original "land thief" were to sell the property to someone else, then you're in the same situation. The new owner bought it in good faith, expecting the fenced-in area to truly belong to them, not knowing that the original property lines were drawn such that some of that property actually should belong to the neighbor. So then acknowledging the status quo means hurting the neighbor, but transferring the property back means hurting the new owner (an innocent bystander). At least in this case, the new owner could perhaps sue the old owner for misrepresenting the size of the land.

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

#706

Post by pdonis »

learnstats2 wrote: post #658
R0b0t1 wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what if the court were being intentionally obtuse and kept interpreting laws in face of the facts and the intent of congress? You need to consider this as something less brazen could be used to undermine congress' authority. The judicial branch de facto has the most power of any branch in the US. The positions are not elected.

> But what if the court were being intentionally obtuse and kept interpreting laws in face of the facts and the intent of congress? This would apply for whichever organisation is responsible for interpreting the existing law: there has to be some such organisation, with significant political power: especially where this power is centralised as in the US Supreme Court, rather than distributed. Giving the executive thi…

> Giving the executive this power

I think you mean the legislative branch, since you say "Congress".

Although the way most "law" is made now, Congress delegates so much of the details to executive agencies that the executive arguably does have the de facto power to re-interpret the laws passed by Congress.

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

#707

Post by mxcrossb »

beenBoutIT wrote: post #556
rudolph9 wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think use of regulated drugs is legal during a religious service https://www.pewforum.org/2006/02/21/supreme-court-rules-that... And, again I think, reservations are exempt from state laws/taxes and to certain extent able to make/enforce their own laws/taxes but they still need to follow federal laws.

The only way to stop our neverending war on drugs is a Constitutional amendment that guarantees every American the right to consume anything they want for any reason. In the next several decades there will be un unprecedented number of elderly Americans living below the poverty line with no pension and medical issues they can't afford to fix - euthanasia will become something of a nuclear option that they'll want ava…

We’ve really reached quite the low point if mind altering substances and suicide are considered the way to improve things...

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

#708

Post by wbl »

kelnos wrote: post #597
schmichael wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're referencing is probably a "prescriptive easement" and is legal (depending on your jurisdiction). If your jurisdiction does not have "adverse possession" or "prescriptive easement" laws, you can probably tear that fence down or do whatever else you want with it. (IANAL and please just talk to your neighbors first!) None of this is related, either legally or in spirit, with the sentence you cited. The cited…

I agree with you on the legal aspects, but the mind-bending bit is that the neighbor's actions -- at the time -- were not legal (because no, it is not legal to build structures on someone else's property without their permission), but because it was left to sit that way for some period of time, the result of those actions -- a de facto redrawing of property lines -- has become the new legal status. Which, honestly, s…

Otherwise you could wake up and discover that a structure you built 30 years ago on land you thought was yours now isn't. The adverse possession law exists to prevent surprises like that.

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

#709

Post by SubiculumCode »

paulmd wrote: post #373
SubiculumCode wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be that the 17th Amendment changing the appointment of Senators to a popular vote from elections by state legislators was a mistake, as "anti-democratic" as that may sound, it may be a good principal in a Republic. The house weighs the popular opinion, the Senate, the will of States.

the senate itself existing was a mistake. It only is fair in the context of some kind of relative equality of states, letting low-population states grind policy to a halt is inherently antidemocratic. (by design! the point was to give smaller states a say and that itself is the problem, it is a bad idea to let a minority be able to grind all action to a halt. You say "but what if they do something I don't like" and t…

We must inspect your assumption that the Senate is unfair because States differ in population. I believe this assumption reflects an inordinate weighting of American citizenship above State citizenship in the union. Historically it could be argued that State citizenship is central to the Republic, whereby territorial governments voluntarily entered the Union as a State, where in exchange for subjugation under the Federal, the State's insterests would receive equal representation in the Senate.

The solution is not to remove the Senate/House combination that balances the will of people and the will of States, but for larger states to break up into smaller ones.

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

#710

Post by mcny »

adrr wrote: post #690
arkis22 wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution.

That only applies to criminal matters and only in terms of punishment. Congress could decriminalize drugs and make it retroactive for people who have yet to be convicted or charged.

Sorry for stupid question but I'd imagine this ruling means the State of Oklahoma (and therefore all counties and cities/towns in Oklahoma) never had the authority to bring criminal cases against those Native Americans in tribal lands?

Would action of Congress mean any such criminal convictions stand? If yes, would that be a violation of the Constitution of the United States?

Post reply on HN