IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Nope - it's just a jurisdictional thing for the courts.
New But I'm wondering ...
Can this case serve as a precedent to say treaty terms are still enforceable?
--

Drew
Expand Edited by drook July 11, 2020, 12:15:35 AM EDT
New Re: But I'm wondering ...
What this does is cast the judicial situation into how it already works in Arizona and New Mexico. This is not a new thing.

The most serious crimes committed by an Indian on Indian land (now nearly half of Oklahoma) must be tried in Federal Court. Less serious offenses committed by Indians on Indian land are to be tried in the Tribal courts. Some specific cases may be assigned by the Federal courts to the State courts if circumstances warrant.
New Yes, but was there ever a Supreme Court ruling saying that?
--

Drew
New Re: Yes, but was there ever a Supreme Court ruling saying that?
I don't recall if the Supreme Court was ever involved, but it has been litigated a number of times in high Federal courts, including at least one where Neil Gorsuch was the judge. His decision then was the same as this time.

Anyway, the Supreme Court has now ruled that way, which makes it pretty firm. When Oklahoma became a state, Congress didn't make any changes to the treaty, so it stands as it was before statehood.
New Here's my thinking
It's true that nothing changed. But for decades the state has ignored the treaty. This ruling* says that no, the treaty stands and the terms are enforceable.

I'm betting there have been other cases, in Oklahoma or elsewhere, that the argument boiled down to, "Yes there's a treaty, but the state has ignored it for so long that it's not fair to hold this private business to its terms." For instance building on Indian land.

If I were an attorney working for the tribes, I'd look for those cases that were decided in federal courts and file an appeal to the USSC.


* My phone autocorrected that to "trolling", which seems oddly appropriate.
--

Drew
New The judgement doesn't impact ownership.
It's a judicial sovereignty thing. more than half of Tulsa is on "Indian land", but that isn't seriously affected. They aren't going to tear it down.
New So in the End..
Whatever has happened since White-man first ignored The Law: becomes Sacred-precedence..
(Until the next cataclysmic revolution. Or a correction of the English language, retroactively).

Polonius to Hamlet--reading book: What readst thou, Prince?
..words ..words.



Nothing to see here; Move-on! ... or we gas you--it's quieter than bullets.
New black hills as reference
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
     O-O-O (Oh!-then) k l a h o m a ! ..where the Deeds all just got colorfully-Repossessed - (Ashton) - (9)
         Nope - it's just a jurisdictional thing for the courts. -NT - (Andrew Grygus) - (8)
             But I'm wondering ... - (drook) - (7)
                 Re: But I'm wondering ... - (Andrew Grygus) - (6)
                     Yes, but was there ever a Supreme Court ruling saying that? -NT - (drook) - (5)
                         Re: Yes, but was there ever a Supreme Court ruling saying that? - (Andrew Grygus) - (4)
                             Here's my thinking - (drook) - (3)
                                 The judgement doesn't impact ownership. - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                                     So in the End.. - (Ashton)
                                 black hills as reference -NT - (boxley)

Lichen shows more autonomy.
50 ms