I would be embarrassed to push that comparison of apples and brussels sprouts.
If the Treaties between the United States and the Indian "Sovereign Nations" is presumed to establish "independence" of the Indian nations to the extent that the Indians can enter into a treaty with the Taliban or Isil, I will question your sanity.
OK.
Where would that line be crossed?
When the Treaties with the injuns were created, presumably with the "consent" of the Senate, did the 19th Century Senates have the Constitutional power and right to obligate FUTURE US Congresses to fund the Indian Nations forever?
Doesn't that totally invalidate the absolute power over the National Purse properly the sole right of the HOUSE?
These overreaching injuns better be careful what they wish for!
Yes, there is no question that "political correctness" can create some intolerable events to occur, as the result of treasonous interpretation of Treaties.
Like the Peanut Farmer imbecile giving away U.S. Panama Canal territory.
“I would be embarrassed to push that comparison of apples and brussels sprouts.”
Not embarassed at all. The indian nations that did not give up their sovereignty in the 1930’s to FDR are prosperous, free, and well integrated with the rest of the country. Did you know the city of Tulsa is entirely sovereign indian nation (four tribes share it)?
The tribes that did “surrender” their sovereignty to FDR actually had white representatives appointed by the federal government to surrender it and reorganized as corporations. Guess who appoints their board? The federal government.
If you believe that the Constitution should rule, then you should have no trouble figuring out why Standing Rock and the Bundy and Ammons situations are very very similar.