So when are they going to get to all the other unlawful stuff the government does?
> they
In democracy there is no "they".
"In democracy you have to be a player" – Hunter S. Thompson, source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHeSC_Ws5Ic
U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
201–210 of 1001 posts
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#202As a general note,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Indian_L...
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 e…
A recent dissent by Justice Thomas is elucidating. "Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision. The Court could have made clear that the solution respondents seek must come from the Legislative Branch. Instead, the majority has decided to prolong [the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS)] initial overreach by providing a stopgap m…
> Now the court rules the current administration can't undo the program?
The court rules that the current administration can't undo it simply by waking up one morning and say "I wish that it be done;" it actually has to go through a process to explain why it is taking the decision it is, which is the same process it had to do to enact the program in the first place.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#204Dumb question... but can I still move to Tulsa?
you're right, that is a dumb question
I don't think it's a dumb question at all. A quick perusal of Wikipedia seems to imply it's a complex issue:
"In addition, because of past land allotments, leading to some sales to non–Native Americans, some reservations are severely fragmented, with each piece of tribal, individual, and privately held land being a separate enclave. This jumble of private and public real estate creates significant administrative, political, and legal difficulties." [1]
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#205Why not everyone assimilate? It is no longer "United States" when we split states off for special treatment for minorities. These minorities will further regress and never get out of the poor living conditions. Reservations are one of the most impoverished regions in the US. We should then probably go back to Genghis Khan times and challenge the whole Eurasia, Persian inlands and a bunch of other areas around the wor…
> Why not everyone assimilate? It is no longer "United States" when we split states off for special treatment for minorities.
Reservations are not states that are "split off" from the US. They are independent nations which were mostly annexed by the US.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#206Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right. I disagree with this reasoning. As a counterexample I point you to squatters rights. If I live on your land long and openly enough, my unlawful act will confer ownership of…
[deleted]
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#207Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right. I disagree with this reasoning. As a counterexample I point you to squatters rights. If I live on your land long and openly enough, my unlawful act will confer ownership of…
Adverse possession is different. That only applies if the rightful owner gives de facto consent by ignoring the injustice and making 0 express or implied to claim in the property. Petitioning for redress cancels the adverse possession claim (obviously), or else you get legal title to any property simply by taking the property by force.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#208"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 e…
> If congress doesn't change something, then that means they have determined no change is necessary.
This not accurate. Congress failing to act due to deadlock does not indicate that either party agrees that no change ought to be made, only that congress couldn’t come to an agreement about how it should be made.
To say otherwise is akin to saying that, because you and your husband can’t agree on where to eat for dinner, you must not be hungry.
Both parties might believe that a law needs to be changed, but changed in opposite directions: one might want it repealed, the other strengthened.
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#209"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…
> because of the massive failure that congress is This is a conclusion I'm coming to more and more. It's easy to blame Presidential overreach or Supreme Court overreach, but the Congress seems to be steadily abdicating responsibility while still managing to get very little of substance accomplished. They are supposed to be the most powerful branch of government, but instead they have deadlocked themselves into useles…
I'm tempted to say that the uselessness of Congress is in indication of something else - we've pushed too much to the federal level. The decades-long tooth-and-nail fighting over healthcare makes me think that an effective system just can't be done federally; there's too much disagreement between states. Why not scrap most of the social programs, cut federal taxes, and let states implement their own?
Re: U.S. Supreme Court deems half of Oklahoma a Native American reservation
#210"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 e…
The judicial branch can decide that a law is not constitutional. It's then Congress' job to find the political will to make the law constitutional. Either by altering it, or amending the constitution. It's a governor on the system. Only the important stuff is supposed to make it past all three branches unscathed.
It either has to be something populist - everyone wants it so I won't get voted out of office - or it needs to be worth spending a ton of political power. When Congress is overwhelmingly in favor of a law, they can prevent a presidential veto. But that degree of unanimity is rarely free. It cost people something else, so it better be worth the opportunity cost.