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

771–780 of 1001 posts

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

#771

Post by dfee »

jake_morrison wrote: post #762
dfee wrote: post #754

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We gave them some shitty land in Oklahoma Interesting sentiment. As someone who grew up in Tulsa, Oklahoma, I think you should go there and tell the people who live there your thoughts.

I grew up in Norman, so I am familiar. It's not as good as the prime real estate they had, and the life they had there. Why do you think the government chose Oklahoma for the reservations?

We both know the reasons as we both studied it in 9th grade Oklahoma History.

Though I’m not sure that Brad Henry (D) really did much more for those people then anyone more recently (R). To be fair, I’ve not lived there for over a decade. There is quite a bit of grift in that state.

It is certainly not the land they were native to, and that is the important point.

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

#772

Post by jake_morrison »

jake_morrison wrote: post #747

We have to recognize how much we screwed over the Native Americans. We took away their prime land on the East coast. We gave them some shitty land in Oklahoma that we didn't think we would ever want. We made them walk there in the "Trail of Tears", and lots of them died along the way. Then we decided to screw them out of the land in Oklahoma after all, but didn't go though the process properly because we didn't think…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears

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

#773

Post by TeeMassive »

jake_morrison wrote: post #747

We have to recognize how much we screwed over the Native Americans. We took away their prime land on the East coast. We gave them some shitty land in Oklahoma that we didn't think we would ever want. We made them walk there in the "Trail of Tears", and lots of them died along the way. Then we decided to screw them out of the land in Oklahoma after all, but didn't go though the process properly because we didn't think…

You should read about history, it's far from being white and black. Europeans were brutal, they were brutal to Europeans and toward other tribes. The only difference is that the Europeans won.

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

#774

Post by jessaustin »

basilgohar wrote: post #746
wbl wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can understand this perspective, but that also means someone else's rights have been trampled over, even if long ago. What's needed is something that prevents this from even happening in the first place.

Not everything in life is perfect. The law isn't either, but it's reasonable to attempt to deal with imperfect situations.

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

#775

Post by kerkeslager »

luckylion wrote: post #237
Mangalor wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All these legalistic reponses, and yet none really touches the sheer absurdity of sentencing someone to 1,000 years. Doesn't the lifespan of a human being figure in at any point? Talking this way is dehumanizing.

Yes, it's called a life sentence. Nobody is expected to live a thousand years, and they're not going to keep them in prison after they die.

But that's the thing, it's not called a life sentence, and the thing that is called a life sentence, isn't a life sentence.

I dunno if I buy the "dehumanizing" argument, but I certainly think it's unnecessarily confusing.

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

#776

Post by emmelaich »

knodi123 wrote: post #560
ISL wrote: post #49

I found the conclusion compelling. I haven't yet had enough time this morning to read the dissent thoughtfully. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf "The federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity. Over time, Congress has diminished that reservation. It has sometimes restricted and other times expanded the Tribe’s authority. But Congress has never withdrawn the promised…

> Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law And yet "adverse possession" allows my neighbor to keep a slice of my yard, because he build the fence shortly before I bought the house (while it was unoccupied!) and I assumed it was proper after I moved in, and now that I've had a survey done and realized his fence is 5' off target, it's too late because he official…

The dissent says that the 'reservation' was disestablished over time with the effect of many laws. So those 'unlawful' acts were, in fact not unlawful.

The whole thing is an interesting read.

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

#777

Post by ciabattabread »

mirimir wrote: post #732
ISL wrote: post #49

I found the conclusion compelling. I haven't yet had enough time this morning to read the dissent thoughtfully. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf "The federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity. Over time, Congress has diminished that reservation. It has sometimes restricted and other times expanded the Tribe’s authority. But Congress has never withdrawn the promised…

Wow. That is just so damn amazing! Also, TFA notes: > In a joint statement, the state, the Creek Nation and the other four of what is known as the “Five Tribes” of Oklahoma said they were making “substantial progress” toward an agreement on shared jurisdiction that they would present to the federal government. The other tribes are the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Seminole. So I wonder whether more of Oklahoma cou…

> And what about other states? I vaguely recall that the Mohawk have claimed a large chunk of New York.

https://www.srmt-nsn.gov/resolve-the-boundary

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

#778

Post by sam36 »

jake_morrison wrote: post #747

We have to recognize how much we screwed over the Native Americans. We took away their prime land on the East coast. We gave them some shitty land in Oklahoma that we didn't think we would ever want. We made them walk there in the "Trail of Tears", and lots of them died along the way. Then we decided to screw them out of the land in Oklahoma after all, but didn't go though the process properly because we didn't think…

It's certainly something to think about when so much today revolves around giving the government even more power and control, all the way down to what we can say.

The Cherokees made up a large portion of the "Trail of Tears". The saddest part is they were largely fully "assimilated" into the "American" culture at the time. Most were fully "Christianized", spoke English, they translated many church hymns into their native language, built towns, and lived in houses. All like the "white man". Then they were asked to give up their guns and property and start marching.

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

#779

Post by mirimir »

ethbro wrote: post #770
mirimir wrote: post #732

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. That is just so damn amazing! Also, TFA notes: > In a joint statement, the state, the Creek Nation and the other four of what is known as the “Five Tribes” of Oklahoma said they were making “substantial progress” toward an agreement on shared jurisdiction that they would present to the federal government. The other tribes are the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Seminole. So I wonder whether more of Oklahoma cou…

> the Mohawk have claimed a large chunk of New York Anyone can claim anything they want. What is relevant here, and why this case was decided the way it was, is that the federal government and the tribe entered into a legally binding, clear contract. Lands east of the Mississippi in exchange for a large piece of what is now Oklahoma, in perpetuity. And Congress never explicitly reneged on that contract. Ergo, it stil…

I found this:[0]

> In February 2005, the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs (a traditional Haudenosaunee government), the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe , and the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne signed an agreement with Governor George Pataki to resolve their historic claim to lands in Northern New York.

> Represented by the Indian Law Resource Center, the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs approved the agreement only after years of vigorous advocacy to ensure that the deal adequately protected the interests of their community and of future generations of Mohawks. “Through a lot of hard work at home and at the negotiating table, the Council of Chiefs has forged an agreement they can be very proud of,” said Indian Law Resource Center attorney Alex Page.

> The settlement agreement resolves legal claims first filed in federal court nearly twenty-five years ago. Those claims site repeated violations of a federal treaty confirming Mohawk land rights. Under the settlement, the Mohawks will receive lands and monetary compensation, as well as the opportunity to further expand their territory through purchases from willing sellers. The agreement does not include casinos or taxation, two issues the Mohawks successfully fought to keep separate from the land claim.

But near the end, I see this:

> Although legislation implementing the settlement passed the New York Assembly in 2005, the State Senate was not able to vote on the measure. We hope to see such legislation passed in the near future.

So maybe it's still in limbo.

Edit: From ciabattabread's comment, I gather that it remains unresolved.[1]

0) https://indianlaw.org/molr/landrights/mohawk

1) https://www.srmt-nsn.gov/resolve-the-boundary

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

#780

Post by arp242 »

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…

In the Netherlands life imprisonment means exactly that: imprisonment for life. There is no option for parole, other than by royal decree (which seems to have happened 3 times since 1970) [1]

According to Wikipedia[2], there are several countries where this is the case:

> In Europe, there are many countries where the law expressly provides for life sentences without the possibility of parole. These countries are England and Wales (within the United Kingdom), the Netherlands, Moldova, Bulgaria, Italy, Hungary, Austria, Malta, Cyprus, Albania, Ukraine and the Republic of Ireland.

This seems much clearer to me than a 200-year sentence which needs to undergo a calculation to get the actual sentence length.

As I understand it, the way trails are done are also a bit different: rather than "two counts of X", people are judged based on "did X two times". In other words, you don't get a separate conviction for both Xs. So if someone killed three people, they're judged based on killing three people, rather than based on every individual killing. In those cases someone can receive a life sentence, rather than "3x30=90 years" or some such.

[1]: Details in Dutch: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levenslange_gevangenisstraf#Ne...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment

Post reply on HN