Posted on 12/06/2001 10:50:15 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
That being said, I'm of two minds about the sovereignty issue - if the treaties between the tribes and the government says they are sovereign, then that's the law. If it doesn't, then that's the law, too... I mean, we ARE still a nation of laws, right? Or did the last 8 years of Clintonism change all that???
And as for the common cry of "it was taken illegally," while perhaps technically true, the term does not mean what the Indians and their proponents would have the general public believe.
The "illegal" taking of the land occurred when NYS purchased the land from the Indians, compensated them, and entered into a treaty. Almost two hundred years later, the tribe declared that the treaty was not binding because it had never been ratified by Congress ( in addition, there is some likelihood that, at the time of the purchase, there was no clear authority showing that congressional ratification was required). So the tribe sued.
Rather than apply the standard doctrines of "statute of limitations" or "laches" (doctrines that limit the amount of time under which an allegedly aggreived party can bring suit,due to the recognition of the injustice that can arise from reviving long dormant issues) that a court would apply to a non-binding contract if one of parties weren't an Indian tribe, the court held that the suit could go forward against the state, the local municipalities and the thousands of property owners who live in the land claim area.
This case is as ridiculous as if somebody sued you today because 200 years ago one of his ancestors sold the land your house sits on and forgot to have the deed notarized.
And now, once again, the indians are bad guys... go figure..
In any event, that argument again fails to explain why the doctrines of laches, collateral estoppel or statute of limitations should not apply 200 years later in the case of the tribes, just as it would for any OTHER legal matter. The only reason it wasn't applied from the beginning was "PC," and the hopes that we (the United States) could buy off the Indians with a state park in a rural community and some cash.
The theft of the land, and it WAS theft, should be admitted to. Period. Maybe the state should give up some of it's own land, but instead the state makes the taxpayers the ones who will lose out. I think that the indians AND the taxpayers should band together, and let the state know that it screwed up, and should work together to fix this issue.
It doesn't appear that either side is 100%'right', but either way the situation MUST be resolved. The longer the state ignores the problem, the worse it gets...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.