You said — If they have a legal claim to be independent then I don’t exactly see what the issue is. What are the terms of our treaty with them?
—
The issue is for one thing, getting the U.S. government to recognize it and to “leave” instead of maintaining all government control. That is one big issue... LOL... (and it would be the same kind of issue in any other state’s secession, too, having the Federal Government just “leave” and not try to declare it illegal and make it an issue of “force”).
Then, the other issue is that if you start doing those things as a sovereign nation (just like any state in the U.S. would do upon secession), you’ll find courts and laws say that you can’t do that and you can’t interfere with other elected officials, which the Feds would come down on a state (and/or the Lakotah, too) like a “ton of bricks” to stop them from doing those things that a “sovereign nation” would do — just like what would happen if a “state” seceded.
So, the Republic of Lakotah is a “textbook example” of what would happen with any state that would try to do that, too...
That doesn’t address the issue of whether they have a right though.
***Then, the other issue is that if you start doing those things as a sovereign nation (just like any state in the U.S. would do upon secession), you’ll find courts and laws say that you can’t do that and you can’t interfere with other elected officials, which the Feds would come down on a state (and/or the Lakotah, too) like a “ton of bricks” to stop them from doing those things that a “sovereign nation” would do — just like what would happen if a “state” seceded.***
I’m sort of confused by what you’re getting at here and I don’t want to misinterpret anything. Would you mind restating it?