2 ms·
It’s because they negotiated a formal treaty (often to end a state of war) which was signed by the president and ratified by 2/3 of the senate. That is supposed
by erik_seaberg 6y ago
It’s because they negotiated a formal treaty (often to end a state of war) which was signed by the president and ratified by 2/3 of the senate. That is supposed to have the same force as any federal law, but over time these were neglected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties#U.S.%E2%80%93Native_American_treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties...
- beerandt 6y ago1) One key fact often overlooked though, is that the tribal treaties (most, anyway) not only gave the US ultimate sovereignty, but also transferred ownership/title of the lands into federally administered trusts, held on behalf of the tribe's members. So anytime a tribe wants to do anything with tribal land, it's got to get signed off on by someone at the Dept of the Interior, or whoever is holding their trust. But not the Dept of State. Which I'm assuming is part of what's going on in the situation in TFA. Govt action requires Govt study. 2) The 2/3 vote is to ratify a treaty, but withdrawl is always easier; it's often accomplished unilaterally, and for the US, it's basically at the Presidents sole discretion, if not at his pleasure. Of course tribal treaties are different things than foreign ones- even if that wasn't the original intent. And politically, leaving any such treaty is an idea DOA.