Skip to main content

View Diary: Oglala Sioux Stand up to SD abortion Law (285 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Could Well Be (0+ / 0-)

    But my understanding is that gambling on reservation land is only permitted in those states that permit some other form of gambling as well (including lotteries).  If a practice is banned throughout the state, one could perhaps make the argument that the same theory would govern here.

    A little bit of additional research seems to indicate that the general legal holding is that "jurisdiction for non-Indian criminal offenses on the reservation lies with state or federal courts: Crimes committed on the reservation by non-Indians against non-Indians are subject to state jurisdiction." (See New York ex rel. Ray v. Martin, 326 U.S. 496 (1946); Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984).)  I'm not a lawyer, but that could be the controlling point.

    •  but how do you define Indian...? (0+ / 0-)

      The Federal government uses a purely racial definition based on "blood" that recalls the bad old days of Jim Crow (remember the term "octoroon"?).  

      But what about a white baby who is adopted by a Native family on the reservation?   What about an adult American who for whatever reason is granted honorary membership in the tribe?  What about someone who joins the Native American Church?  

      That is, what about the tribes expanding their membership via memes instead of genes?  

      And how could the US government possibly make a racial definition continue to stick, in the face of all that?  I could imagine a huge legal stink being raised over that issue in the case where an Indian nation was attempting to go full-ahead with expanding its membership by adopting people of other ancestries.  This could get very interesting.  

      •  Umm . . . That Was in the 19th Century (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SarahLee

        Racial definitions, to the extent they exist, were state, not federal constructs.

        But more to the point, membership in Native American tribes is controlled by the tribes themselves, and with very, very few exceptions, this is not something they tend to hand out lightly, since it would grant the recipient both financial and voting rights within the nation.  I don't believe the federal government would have any say in the matter one way or the other -- it's purely a matter of internal governance.

        •  What I am thinking here (0+ / 0-)

          comes from Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath. Remember when the Joad family stops at the federal camp which is inside a state (which one?) but federal laws apply inside it and it is an oasis. It is the states that sanctioned the criminal attacks against the migrant wave to the west during the depression. Those camps saved so many lives as people stopped there,rested,got food and medical care. Must be a precedent there.

      •  Tribes are NOT going to offer (0+ / 0-)

        tribal membership to non-Indians.  Debates over blood quantums already tear them apart.  And it is a justified debate because of such limited resources and funds and growing populations.  No one wants to leave out their 16th blood granddaughter, but no one wants to have to split the little they have with more people.  No easy answers.

        I am an honorary member of a tribe and have been adopted by two Lakota families.  It gives me nothing more than respect.

    •  what is the meaning of 'crimes'-- ?? (0+ / 0-)

      Is it a crime to provide requested and properly indicated medical services to a person, Indian or otherwise, or a reservation ?

      What is the crime ? It sounds to me like they would be trying to define the fetus as the person against whom a crime is being committed, in order to make this fly as a criminal jurisdictional issue.

      What about wrongful life and wrongful birth lawsuits ?

      This thing gets incredibly complicated !

      Let's get some Democracy for America

      by murphy on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 11:36:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I understand why Sharia Law applies in (0+ / 0-)

        Muslim states. simple,fundamentalist,fascist law doesn't get complicated. Black or white?

        •  I guess you don't understand much then (0+ / 0-)

          because Sharia - just like Talmudic law, just like the old Althing - consists of nothing but a bunch of guys fighting over how to apply a text based on past applications of the law to the present in light of other past interpretations, instead of being able to go to a Code of Laws or a Constitution and saying "It Says X". That's why it differs from place to place, and generation to generation. Imam A or Rabbi B say X, next generation or next city over, Imam B and Rabbi A say differently.

          Modern Western law is much more cut-and-dried, and tries to be, than older, oral-tradition based laws. Cut-and-dried vs. interpretive does not mean "more human" or "less humane" - just ask the American slaves and the First Nations how humane Western law was.

          Uninformed bigots abound...but people on the left are supposed to be reality based, right? Pfft.

          "Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)

          by bellatrys on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 07:57:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  SD law does allow for abortion... (0+ / 0-)

      to save the life of the mother.  All abortions are not illegal.  Maybe the reservation would just have it's own restrictions.

      Seems to me they would have to say mothers need to die rather than have an abortion in order to make sure it would be completely illegal to have abortions on reservations.  Who wants to sponsor that bill?  

      Does the devil wear a suit and tie, Or does he work at the Dairy Queen- Martin Sexton

      by strengthof10kmen on Wed Mar 22, 2006 at 12:09:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site