"An Inherent Right to Self-Determination"
Sovereignty is the most fundamental concept that defines the relationship between the government of the United States and governments of American Indian Tribes. The following are very good explanations of what the concept of Sovereignty is:
"When the legal concept of sovereignty was first challenged in the Supreme Court by the state of Georgia in the 1820's, Chief Justice Marshall took pains to examine this legal apparatus and to explain how it functions... "Sovereignty, explained Marshall, exits as a pre-condition among self-governing entities and acts as a legal shield protecting all rights and privileges reserved and implied by nationhood. In fact, treaties were a granting of rights from the tribes, to the federal government."
-Paul VanDevelder; 1999
"...Indian tribes must act like Indians. That's the only justification for preserving internal sovereignty... if we don't bring those traditions back, then the problems those traditions solved are going to continue to grow. Then we'll have to get funding to set up programs to deal with those issues... When you set up programs, you are exercising your internal sovereignty, but the funding sources determines how the program is going to operate and then the funding source defines internal sovereignty."
-Vine Deloria
"Indian sovereignty is the principle that those powers which are lawfully vested in an Indian tribe, are not delegated powers granted by express acts of Congress, but rather inherent powers of a limited sovereignty which can never be extinguished."
-Felix Cohen, New York Supreme Court Justice, 1942
In Worcester v. Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled that Indian tribes are "distinct political communities, retaining their original rights as the undisputed possessors of the soil from time immemorial...the very term nation, so generally applied to them, means a people distinct from others, having territorial boundaries, within which their authority is exclusive, and having a right to all the lands within those boundaries, which is not only acknowledged but guaranteed by the United States."
" From its earliest days, the United States has recognized the sovereign status of Indian tribes as domestic dependent nations. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 17 (1831). Our Constitution recognizes Indian sovereignty by classing Indian treaties among the "supreme law of the land," and establishes Indian affairs as a unique area of federal concern. In early Indian treaties, the United States pledged to "protect" Indian tribes, thereby establishing one of the bases for the federal trust responsibility in our government-to-government relations with Indian tribes. These principles continue to guide our national policy towards Indian tribes."
-Office of the U.S. Attorney General, 1995
I hope this has provided enough information to began to understand the concept of American Indian tribal sovereignty.
I read with interest the confirmations of sovereignty. The point that I would like to comment on is the Treaty Rights containd in most agreements with Indian tribes. And more specitically "heath care". We paid a huge premium for or health care in the form of millions of acres of the best land in America. Today we have lost or have had this right stolen from us by the United States of America. Administrave rule has superceded our treatied right to health care. In fact, by administrative rule you have to be dying to recieve services and then maybe that is not guarenteed either. To recieve routine dental care, it is required to arrive at the IHS and stand in line to be one of the only 20 that will be seen that day. We did not include this in the Treaty! Aunt Mable can not get her hip fixed because she is not dying yet and therefore by "administrative rule" she will have to hobble around until there might be enought money to fix her hip. But that may not happen because there was a drunken car wreck that depleted the funds so wait until next year. I watched with interest the recent Select Indian Affairs committee hearing with Yvette Roubideaux. I was impressed with Senator Dorgan's seemed knowledge about the problems in Indian country dealing with health issues. What concerned me was a statement he made something to the effect that "out there" no one knows or cares about the "Indian health problems". A member or our Tribe, the Blackfeet in Montana, said to then Senator Obama that we "Indians" are known by many different names, redskins, native, etc., but what we really should be called is "invisible". He urged Obama to put us on the screen so that we and our issues are not forgotten. I am sure that our leaders over the years have complained about health care, apparently to deaf ears. Perhaps, we need another movement. This time we can do it with computers. It is people like you and Jodi that can make this happen. I would like to see if you can move your readership to complain about health care and our treatied right with out the constaints of "administrve rule". Virgil Puggy Edwards
ReplyDeleteyou are so right in your understanding of these issues. The fact that we have had to become so dependent upon Contract Health Care has been the manner in which our right to proper care has been deminished. Regional Health facilities close to reservations use these contract dollars as a base for their budgets. They know exactly how much each tribe will receive and they then can count that as part of their budget. They can count on this funding because they know our people will be forced to use their facility. When negotiations occure between IHS and the particular hospital IHS (has in the past anyway) agreed to the highest charge a hospital will charge regarding a particular stay in their facility. Take the hospital in Pierre, SD all of the infant deliveries are performed in that hospital. If deliveries could be performed on Cheyenne River we would get a better use of the contract system. We, however cannot because of the changes in how the medical profession has changed protocals based on the insurance industry.
ReplyDeleteWhat we sould be doing is looking at all aspects of health care and not just not having enough funds to go around. Secondly we need to become a healthier people so we would not have to use these outside facilities. You are so right about alcohol related accidents draining the budegets.
This is such a complicated problem we need to spend much more time discussing this. One issue I see is IHS itself and the fact that it is run by a small number of professionals who are dedicated to their careers and following orders. You don't find many who will buck the system. They are medical professionals who see health care from a narrow set of standards and it is difficult for them to think outside of the box. When we get more individuals who are willing to look outside the box for answers and ask Indian people themselves how they would make changes we may get some place.
I have always been willing to ask the hard questions and pursue new and innovative ways to solve our problems. Thank you for sharing your view point on this very important issue.