On the Pow Wow Highway

The boys and I are in Tahlequah, Indian Territory for the Cherokee National Holiday. Apparently, there's been some news...McCain's choice of Governor Sarah Palin strikes me as a huge gamble, trading his best argument against Obama (experience or the lack thereof) for the hope that disgruntled Hillary voters are A) still disgruntled; and B) are disgruntled enough to vote for ANY woman, even one who is Hillary's complete polar opposite on nearly all issues. So, far, seems not to be working too well. I'm not the only one who thinks Palin was picked because every other viable Republican woman was unavailable or uninterested in deck chair duty on the Titanic. Interestingly, one of my most trusted political pundits (who has been EXTREMELY pessimistic about Obama) had this first impression: "McCain just lost."

Freedmen Decision

The DC Court of Appeals has ruled that the Cherokee Nation cannot be sued without its consent. However, the decision leaves open the possibility that individual tribal officials can be sued for violating the 1866 Treaty. Discussion of the issue at John Cornsilk's Place. Links to the briefs at Turtle Talk.
Based on a very limited analysis of the decision, it seems to me that if the trial court (which, remember, ruled that CN had waived sovereign immunity) allows suit against the Principal Chief and the Tribal Council individually, then not much will have changed, though I'm curious as to what the Freedmen's remedy would be if they prevail under those conditions.

UPDATE: More on the story from Indian Country Today.

In the Immortal Words of Pogo...

..."We has met th' enemy and they is us." Excellent opinion piece from Indian Country Today on the moral (as opposed to merely legal) wrong of the Freedmen disenfranchisement. EBW at Wampum uses the article as the jumping-off point for a wider discussion of internalized self-colonialism, a sort of Stockholm Syndrome whereby the victims become victimizers themselves.

Watson on Obama on the Freedmen

From my Right Honorable Colleague, Wampum: Cong. Diane Watson responds to Barack Obama's recent dodge on the Freedmen case. While I generally agree with her comments, I wish she had mentioned that the Cherokee National Council actually abolished slavery before the 1866 Treaty, in fact before the Emancipation Proclamation. This should be a matter of historical pride for the Nation; instead, the whole Freedmen debacle has exposed a nasty, virulent strain of racism among (primarily thin-blood) Cherokee.

Freedmen Case Before DC Circuit Court of Appeals

From Indianz.com, via Wampum who caught it before I did. I tend to agree with Judge Steven Russell (who comes from a long line of Cherokee Judges) that the panels' questions indicate they don't necessarily believe the Cherokee Nation has to be sued by the Freedmen in order for the Federal Gov't to enforce the Treaty of 1866. So, if that's really what the panel is thinking, does that mean the BIA would disallow the 2003 Constitution? Sever the government-to-government relationship with CN until the Freedmen are guaranteed citizenship? Both of the above? And, of course, we shouldn't get too excited that this will all be resolved anytime soon; whoever is on the losing end of the three judge panel's decision will move for a rehearing en banc (before the entire Court, including the virulently anti-Indian Judge Janice Rogers Brown); whoever loses that will likely appeal to the US Supreme Court. And if it gets into the hands of this Supreme Court, God help us all. If there's anyway for the Freedmen, CN AND tribal sovereignty to ALL lose, this Supreme Court will find it.

UPDATE: And speaking of threats to tribal sovereignty, the Smith Administration has succeeded in having the Delaware Tribe stripped of its Federal recognition (and funding), the first time this has happened since the end of the Termination Era.

Obama Punts on Freedmen Issue

Shorter Obama: let the courts decide (so I don't have to).

H/T to John Cornsilk

Triple Standard?

The Delaware and the Shawnee have bitter experience with losing recognition and federal funds--at the hands of Chief Chad Smith and the Cherokee Nation. And in other Freedmen-related news, the National American Indian Housing Council is worried that the fight over the Freedmen in Congress could completely derail the NAHSDA.

Quick Freedmen Update

Cong. Barney Frank, the powerful and well-connected Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, announced he will oppose a conference committee report on HR 2786 (the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act) unless it contains the Freedmen Rider proposed by the Congressional Black Caucus. So far, all of Chief Smith's intensive lobbying hasn't come to much.

More coverage and thoughtful commentary by my Right Honourable Cherokee Colleague, EBW at Wampum.

Senate to Attach Freedmen Rider

The US Senate is apparently poised to add a measure by the Congressional Black Caucus to cut housing funding to the Cherokee Nation if the Freedmen are disenrolled. Chief Chad Smith has been lobbying heavily against the proposal, which has already passed the House, an amendment to the reauthorization of the Native American Housing and Self-Determination Act. If the NAHSDA passes with the Freedmen rider, the pressure on the Cherokee Nation to reach some kind of settlement will increase dramatically. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's a compromise left that both sides could sign off on. The Freedmen have a good case, legally and morally, that all Freedmen should remain as citizens. The Smith Administration has backed itself into a corner by refusing to even acknowledge that any of the Freedmen have a legitimate claim.

Great White Father Knows Best, Part 257

Judge Leeds at the Tsalagi Think Tank analyzes the negative implications of the Oneida land case from Wisconsin, specifically as it would apply to the Cherokee Nation. The upshot is that this decision continues to promote the doctrine that Indians are too stupid to know how to handle our own land and must therefore rely on the benevolence of the Great White Father in Washingtion, in the form of the BIA, through the land-into-trust process. The other effect of continued dependence on land-into-trust (for lands owned in fee simple by the tribes) is that it enables local governments to have an effective veto over what tribes may or may not do (i.e., casinos) on their own land. Another blow to tribal sovereignty.

Latest Freedmen News

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments on whether or not the Freedmen can sue the Cherokee Nation in federal court without the Nation's consent. Federal District Judge Henry Kennedy previously ruled that the Nation's sovereign immunity was waived by the Treaty of 1866 and the 13th Amendment. Hard to predict how this will go; Federal courts have been notoriously unsympathetic to tribal sovereignty.

Congress & the Freedmen

Congress is demanding answers from the BIA over the current status of the Freedmen. Be sure to check out the comments section; John Cornsilk wades in and smites the ignorant hip and thigh.

In Congress

A fascinating and informative law review article on a seldom-discussed matter: the right of the Cherokee Nation under treaty to a delegate in the US House of Representatives. I had always thought that some other tribes (for some reason, the Delaware stuck in my head) had at least been promised a delegate at some point, but apparently CN is unique. If not for all the negative feelings generated over the Freedmen Issue, now would seem to be a good time to push for this delegate, given Speaker Pelosi's efforts to increase the power of other delegates.

Keeping Our Word

Judge Steve Russell, Cherokee citizen, law professor, Texas jurist, and all-around fascinating person to talk to over dinner, on the intellectual double-speak of the anti-Freedmen faction.

My Infamy Spreads

Once again, I am quoted in the Tahlequah Daily Press, this time over the controversy concerning term limits for principal chief and whether or not they apply to incumbent Chad Smith.

Sean Nordwall on the Freedman Debate

Sean Nordwall, a very impressive young man who I met while he was campaigning (ultimately unsuccessfully) for Cherokee Nation Tribal Council, has this editorial in Indian Country Today responding to the Smith Administration's campaign of disinformation and fear-mongering over the Freedman Issue.

Oliphant and the Freedmen

An excellent post from John Cornsilk's site pointing out something that had frankly never occurred to me: the intersection of the Freedmen Controversy and the Supreme Court's decision in Oliphant that essentially granted the right of extraterritoriality to white pedophiles and rapists who prey on Indian women and children in Indian Country.

On a related note: Chief Chad Smith's editorial at HuffPo and John's dissection of it.

"They Were One of Us"

Say what you will about former Principal Chief Joe Byrd, he gives a powerful and moving argument against disenrolling the Freedmen:

"The Freedmen came with us on the Trail of Tears," he recalled. "They delivered babies with us. They died with us. They ate with us. They buried our dead. They were one of us."

Apparently...

...Chief Smith's rousing "State of the Nation" Address did not have the desired effect, as the House voted yesterday 333-75 to cut funding to the Cherokee Nation. The only bright spot was the adoption of an amendment by Cong. Dan Boren that would delay the cuts while the case makes its way through Federal court.

Meanwhile, Chief George Wickliffe of the UKB dissects the slick propaganda leaflets distributed by the hundreds if not thousands at the recent Cherokee National Holiday.

Morality and the Freedmen

From Wampum (back from summer vacation), a thought-provoking discussion of the moral aspects of the Freedmen controversy. The comments raise yet another point: if you are (like me) a fairly militant supporter of Tribal Sovereignty, what do you do when a tribe (particularly your tribe) uses its sovereignty to commit a grave moral injustice? Even though I am very sympathetic to the Freedmen and I hope they remain as tribal members, I can't find myself rooting for Congress to ride to the rescue by cutting funding, since the very act of doing so states rather implicitly that Congress has once again expanded the scope of its peremptory powers to now decide tribal membership. If tribes can't decide who is and who isn't an Indian, what sovereignty do they have left?

On a semi-related note, my boys and I were in Tahlequah this weekend for the Cherokee National Holiday. I managed to miss Principal Chief Chad Smith wrapping himself in the flag of the very sovereignty he has endangered, but I did watch him get knocked off his feet and into the air two or three times during a stickball game Saturday Night. He was the oldest one playing by (I would guess) ten or fifteen years and apparently didn't realize they were playing "Choctaw Rules". Eventually, someone yelled "Don't hurt him!" and they stopped clobbering him. To his credit, though, he stuck it out to the bitter end, and his team won 5-4. You won't see George W. Bush suiting up for the Superbowl, I can guarantee you that.