Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Native American Sovereignty is as Sovereignty does.

balderdash111 · 08-13-2004, 06:35 AM

Ok, I'm getting sick of being a Bush supporter here, but let me try one more time to get my point across. If you disagree, then so be it..

Here is the question:

Q: "What do you think Tribal Sovereignty means in the 21st century. And how do we resolve conflicts between the tribes and the federal and state governments"

Here is the answer

"Tribal sovereignty means that -- it's sovereign. You're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities."

Ok, so here's my analysis.

It's a 2 part question, so let's break it out, along with what I think are the answers to the 2 questions.

Q1: What do you think Tribal Sovereignty means in the 21st century?

A1: Tribal sovereignty means that -- it's sovereign. You're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity.

Clearly the questioner was going for a little more here, but taken from the President's point of view, what kind of answer can you give? (FYI, if I were Native American, I would be pissed off at the idea that they'd been "given" sovereignty. Rather, they retained their natural sovereignty.)

I think what he's doing is assuming everyone knows what "sovereignty" means, and suggesting there isn't much more to it than that. Tribal sovereignty means you're sovereign. Duh.

(again, I completely understand that there are tons of thorny issues about what exactly sovereignty means in the context of Native American issues -- what the hell is a "domestic dependent nation" anyway?? -- and no, I doubt Bush knows much about them)

Q2: How do we resolve conflicts between the tribes and the federal and state governments?

A2: The relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.

Ok not exactly a direct response to the question, but breaking up the two questions and answers -- I think -- makes it look a little worse than it is.

His point is that you resolve conflicts between tribes and government(s) as you would any other type of issue between sovereign entities. In the United States, for disputes between sovereign entities that are subject to US law (e.g., states vs states or states vs Feds) it means you go to court or have Congress pass a law.

Was it an articulate answer? No.

Was it the kind of nuanced discussion the questioner was looking for? No.

But did Bush come off as big an idiot as you all seem to think? I don't think so.

Vote Kerry!

(PS: I think we all know that Republicans know very well what sovereignty means. They are always warning about losing it to the UN, or about the Feds taking it away from the states)

08-13-2004, 06:35 AM	#31 (permalink)
balderdash111 Psycho	Ok, I'm getting sick of being a Bush supporter here, but let me try one more time to get my point across. If you disagree, then so be it.. Here is the question: Q: "What do you think Tribal Sovereignty means in the 21st century. And how do we resolve conflicts between the tribes and the federal and state governments" Here is the answer "Tribal sovereignty means that -- it's sovereign. You're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." Ok, so here's my analysis. It's a 2 part question, so let's break it out, along with what I think are the answers to the 2 questions. Q1: What do you think Tribal Sovereignty means in the 21st century? A1: Tribal sovereignty means that -- it's sovereign. You're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. Clearly the questioner was going for a little more here, but taken from the President's point of view, what kind of answer can you give? (FYI, if I were Native American, I would be pissed off at the idea that they'd been "given" sovereignty. Rather, they retained their natural sovereignty.) I think what he's doing is assuming everyone knows what "sovereignty" means, and suggesting there isn't much more to it than that. Tribal sovereignty means you're sovereign. Duh. (again, I completely understand that there are tons of thorny issues about what exactly sovereignty means in the context of Native American issues -- what the hell is a "domestic dependent nation" anyway?? -- and no, I doubt Bush knows much about them) Q2: How do we resolve conflicts between the tribes and the federal and state governments? A2: The relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities. Ok not exactly a direct response to the question, but breaking up the two questions and answers -- I think -- makes it look a little worse than it is. His point is that you resolve conflicts between tribes and government(s) as you would any other type of issue between sovereign entities. In the United States, for disputes between sovereign entities that are subject to US law (e.g., states vs states or states vs Feds) it means you go to court or have Congress pass a law. Was it an articulate answer? No. Was it the kind of nuanced discussion the questioner was looking for? No. But did Bush come off as big an idiot as you all seem to think? I don't think so. Vote Kerry! (PS: I think we all know that Republicans know very well what sovereignty means. They are always warning about losing it to the UN, or about the Feds taking it away from the states)