Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ellery
I'm merely pointing out the flaw in their argument. State residents are subject to campaign finance laws, are they not? If the tribes were arguing that they're sovereign in the way states are, they would not be able to opt out of campaign laws anymore than you or I can. They are clearly arguing something else altogether.

Well, I happen to agree with you on that. There IS a flaw in their argument. I do, however, like to make sure people understand that we are NOT "foreign sovereigns", but we ARE American citizens.

On another thread, indians were compared to columbian drug cartels and Saudi Wahhabists, so maybe I overreacted. However, several people, as I mentioned, thought it would be good if american indians were denied the right to participate in any political campaigns, except tribal elections. I agree that we should be bound by the same laws as everyone else (one reason I choose to live off the rez - that, and I have constitutional rights out here) - but we SHOULD be equal, not denied rights. Does that make sense?

:0)

77 posted on 09/26/2003 4:05:51 PM PDT by Chad Fairbanks (I like my women like I like my coffee - Hot, and in a big cup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]


To: Chad Fairbanks
It does make sense -- and I wholeheartedly agree with you that American Indians deserve equal rights.

The whole situation seems confusing and ambiguous. On one hand, the feds should at the very least live up to the agreement that reservations are sovereign (after all the historical promises they've broken). On the other hand, of course the land's early citizens are US citizens! Yet tribes don't seem to be treated quite as one or the other. They're certainly not treated like other US states -- they have more freedom than other US states, but none of the recognition/respect. What if reservations were formally declared sovereign states, along with the attendant names, maps, stars, electoral votes, National Governor's Assn. invites, etc.? It seems to me that that would be a much fairer and clearer situation ('though given the state of the 10th amendment these days, the tribes may be better off as-is). I don't think the current limbo situation is doing anyone any good.

What are your thoughts?
78 posted on 09/26/2003 5:29:19 PM PDT by ellery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson