5 ms·
> 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,
by ethbro 6y ago
> 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 still stands.
Should the Mohawk produce a similarly ironclad agreement regarding New York, they would then have a claim.
- mirimir 6y agoI 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 https://indianlaw.org/molr/landrights/mohawk 1) https://www.srmt-nsn.gov/resolve-the-boundary https://www.srmt-nsn.gov/resolve-the-boundary
- koheripbal 6y agoI imagine Congress is going to pass a law the ensures that Tulsa is not on part of the reservation. ...because that would be ludicrous. The Supreme Court is essentially forcing Congress to take a stance.
- cvg 6y agoLarge parts of Tacoma Washington are tribal land owned by non-tribe members and it functions. I would assume a similar arrangement would work in Tulsa.
- icelancer 6y agoThis is what Justice Thomas has been doing for a long time now (to a fault), and Gorsuch has also taken up: Congress, do your job rather than make the judicial branch perform extralegal bench activism.
- rtpg 6y agoSure in theory Thomas is doing that, but it feels a lot like cosplay when such a resolution would go against his general views on power in general (see this case). People might have their legal doctrines, but it’s rarely as clearcut as you lay out and all the justices can only at most be “problematic faves”
- icelancer 6y agoI agree on Thomas, hence the "to a fault" part in parens.
- dragonwriter 6y ago“to a fault” means “to an extent verging on excess.” You seem to be using it to mean “to a point limited sharply by his policy preferences”, which is pretty much the opposite.