A bill in Congress would strip the Constitutional rights from any Americans being prosecuted by an American Indian tribe under Indian law.


Readers!
 
For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
 
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.

 

Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

Whose side are they on? A bill in Congress would strip the Constitutional rights from any Americans being prosecuted by an American Indian tribe under Indian law.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the language in this Senate bill, if enacted, means that “the Constitution will not apply” to Americans tried by Indian tribes for alleged acts of domestic violence. These Americans, according to the CRS, will not have recourse to the Bill of Rights.

In truth, Congress does not have the right to pass any law that voids the rights outlined in the Constitution. But this law will force citizens to go to court to fight for those rights.

More details about the law, which has already passed the Senate, here. It appears that the Republicans are once again folding like a house of cards on this battle.

Share

11 comments

  • wodun

    So we want to give rights under our constitution to people who are not citizens but take them away from from our citizens. Seems fitting in today’s world where up is down and spending is saving.

  • JGL

    Yes, this is the rule: everything that the government recommends, do the exact opposite.

    The government as a rule is the enemy of the peoples freedoms so they must always be checked

    and pushed back on.However this administration takes it to a whole new level because of their

    foundation ideology, Marxism (you remember the other guy who always was worried about

    redistributing other peoples money).

    Keep an eye on this Bob Woodward “they threatened me” situation, he is not backing down, maybe

    he will add a second presidential notch in his pen.

  • Pzatchok

    This is not really an argument about taking away constitutional rights.

    The tribes are not allowed to impose a stronger penalty than the state would in the same case.

    This is more along the line of tribal autonomy and exactly how much they have. They in fact have little. Everything about their reservations is controlled by treaties set up by people they never elected or agreed to in full knowledge.

    This agreement allows them to try a few specific cases that they normally didn’t have the authority to try before, like domestic abuse. They still have to keep detailed track of all evidence and proceedings and the case can be reviewed by a state court.
    And from what I understand the defendant at all times has the right to request being tried in a state court for their offense. Most did not because they knew the tribe normally imposed community service for the offenses they were allowed to adjudicate. Normally something the defendant could afford.
    Not all tribes even have jails or the manpower and cash to support one, so in those cases where the defendant would have to be imprisoned they normally just sent them off to the state.

    People need to know that there are hundreds of different tribes governed by hundreds of different treaties and hundreds of reservations. Plus you can add in non reservation lands owned by tribal members that in some cases are recognized as autonomous areas.

    Think of reservations as separate nations. You do not have the same rights in Mexico as you have in the US so in no way should you automatically expect anything different when on a reservation.

    I am a conservative republican but I do believe that the tribal and native American situation needs to be readdressed and all reservations should be given their own total autonomy. But the biggest stumbling block to this is the fact that so many of these agreements have been by treaty and not by simple law.

  • JGL

    This may be controversial:

    We butt heads again, the extension of your “all reservations should have their own total

    autonomy” is that the country America will have to be disassembled if it is taken to its maximum

    as I think you imply.

    There is are two words that need to be understood as they relate to power, the word to LOSE

    and the word to be CONQUERED. To lose means you live to fight another day, but to be

    conquered means that you are destroyed, absorbed, abused, assimilated, displaced, your

    language is forgotten etc. etc.

    The Native Americans were conquered by a more aggressive and technologically advanced type

    of people.

    And this lies at the foundation of Obamas (and yours, apparently) “because its the right thing to

    do” subjective, emotional solutions to objective, logical legal problems.

    In general, throughout history who ever conquered the other wrote the history and wrote the

    law, in America today, and this IMO is where the Constitution contains the means of its own

    destruction, everyone who has been conquered becomes a litigant and demands reparations,

    and they may be able to sustain their argument at some point.

    This is observation related to the natural condition, Im not saying that its right or wrong but this

    is what is going on, this is or something like it appears to be our trajectory.

  • JGL

    Supporting documentation:

    A Texas high school student has filed suit against her school district, claiming she was punished for refusing to recite the Mexican national anthem and pledge of allegiance as part of a Spanish class assignment.

    Brenda Brinsdon, then 15, told TheBlaze exclusively in 2011 that students in her intermediate Spanish class were instructed to recite the Mexican anthem and pledge individually in front of their peers at Achieve Early College High School in McAllen, Texas. Brinsdon refused, telling TheBlaze at the time that “Reciting pledges to Mexico and being loyal to it has nothing to do with learning Spanish.” She also provided TheBlaze with video she recorded of students taking part in the assignment.

  • Pzatchok

    What the hell does that have to do with Native American rights?

  • Pzatchok

    Are you saying that because the Native Americans were conquered that they have no rights?

    Could not the same be said about African Americans?

    What about the Alaskan Inuit? They never went to war with America but yet they to have treaties and reservations. Do they have rights since they were never conquered?

    And as for the reservation breaking up our nation I really don’t think you know just how small they really are.
    They cover less area than our national parks and I do not see those as breaking anything up.

  • JGL

    They all have rights as per the Constitution and that is the point.

    If you consider history this is a conversation that does not happen, no one cares because the

    dominating power throughout history will not entertain the thought of entertaining it, there is

    nothing that forces them to consider it. The Constitution may allow it to be considered and at that

    point we may unravel.

    And its not the size of any one particular native nation, its the logic and the extension of that logic

    and your perspective that is of importance.

    Q: Was G. Washington a freedom fighter or terrorist?

    There are people who choose to have the perspective that he was a terrorist, I see him as a

    freedom fighter.

    Q: Who’s correct?

    I say I am.

    The Mexicans or the people who support the Mexicans want American children to recite their

    national anthem (subliminal conditioning) because the “Americans” took their land or culture

    through conquest, and so do the Inuit, the Africans, the Puerto Ricans, the Irish, the Italians, the

    Japanese, the who ever has a beef, anyone who has been dominated by this particular social /

    cultural / war / power machine we call America.

    I say we should understand it and the implications of how our Constitution may in time deal with

    it with the kind of philosophy which the current president and administration brings to the table.

  • jwing

    The reservation system has become the biggest problem. I think of them as 19th century concentration camps where the inhabitants have become their own worst emeny through rampant alcoholism, poor education, high drop-out rates, futilism, suicide, homicide and no hope of ever breaking free for this cycle of despair and destitude.
    Reservatons are a microcosm of what the entire country will become under Obamism…a large welfare state of low expectations.

  • JGL

    Thats a good analogy, we will all become victims of being conquered from within because

    “its the right thing to do”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *