3 ms·
The US, through congressional action, can ultimately do what it wants including an eminent domain type taking. These used to be policy with the termination acts
by random5634 6y ago
The US, through congressional action, can ultimately do what it wants including an eminent domain type taking. These used to be policy with the termination acts. That's stopped and now federally there is support of self governance, but that could of course change in the future.
- ashtonkem 6y agoCan it do that for tribal land though? Tribes are sometimes legally semi-sovereign, and congress’ power in them is complicated.
- random5634 6y agoSure - it can and has. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/STATUTE-71/STATUTE-71-Pg283-2 https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/STATUTE-71/STATUTE-71-Pg... is an example. Currently however congress has tried to improve / make up for prior poor treatment of native americans - but the power is ultimately in congresses hands (with some small limits). Trump was active in this more recently https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/31/trump-administration-revokes-mashpee-wampanoag-tribe-reservation-status https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/31/trump-admini...
- ashtonkem 6y agoWasn’t there just a SCOTUS case where they actually stopped the federal government from doing something because it would violate an old treaty? If so, it seems like the government’s ability to do whatever it wants in this area might get clipped.
- random5634 6y agoThe SCOTUS cases covered two situations - a guy convicted of murder and another (the one that was deceided) was related to child sex abuse. The decision was that congress had not disestablished the reservation as part of the Oklahoma Enabling Act of 1906, and so they could not be convicted in Oklahoma courts. This emphasizes, not diminishes, congresses role in deciding what reservations are established or not.
- TheCoelacanth 6y agoYes, but the decision was basically that the treaty was still in force because there has never been a law passed overriding it. They could do something about it, but they need to pass a law to do it. They can't just do it without changing the law.
- beerandt 6y agoSeparately from sovereignty, most tribe "owned" land is already held in trust for the tribes members by an agent of the US govt.
- random5634 6y agoVery true. And lots of debates come up about who in the tribe is in charge of this land, and even who is part of the tribe if money gets involved.
- random5634 6y agoQuick note that while my comment was downvoted heavily, it is correct - I do welcome factual responses.