American Indian Law

Having been filled with all I could take for the week in reading and hearing about Native American Law and the constant struggle to place more or less a timer on our diminishing way of life and the constant struggle to get one of the most powerfull countries in the world to accept the original people from a country that they took over. I find it sad and disturbing in several ways.
1. I know very little about my ancestors and way of life before this happened.
2. It confuses the hell out of me the multiple ways that I was raised with the understanding that I have why anyone would treat other people like this.
3. Its all over money..........people don't live very long why would you want to wipe an entire way of life out of some land and money (even if it is a ridiculously large amount)

The idea or concept of law in the US over the past few years has astonished me. The way we do business and our general way of life in American land of the free home of the brave is disturbing. It seems as if we can't coexist with other people or other nations. It seems our way of life is run on the destruction of other people and our tank was getting empty during the Bush administration.
Hopefully we have the constitution and enough love for others to pull through what we have so eagerly dug ourselves into for personal gain.

It seems laws truly are meant to be broken and our country is truly #1




http://www.narf.org/nill/triballaw/index.htm

Tribal Constitutions and Charters

http://thorpe.ou.edu/const.html

"American Indian law: an overview

(http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/American_Indian_law)

In U.S. law the term "Indians" refers generally to the indigenous peoples of the continent at the time of European colonization. "Alaska Natives" and "Native Hawaiians" refer to peoples indigenous to the areas occupied by those named states. The terms "tribe" or "band" designate a group of Indians of the same or similar heritage united in a community under one leadership or government and inhabiting a particular territory. Because Indians have increasingly preferred "nation" or "people," the term "tribe" has become controversial. The terms used may vary from statute to statute and case to case as well.
States may recognize particular Indian groups, even if the federal government does not recognize the group. To determine whether a group will be recognized, courts and legislatures examine such factors as the extent of Indian governmental control over individual lives and activities, the extent to which the group exercises political control over specific territory, and the continuity of the group's history.
Federal law recognizes a special kind of Indian sovereign authority to govern themselves, subject to an overriding federal authority. Indian tribes are considered by federal law to be "domestic, dependent nations." Congress enacted this sovereign authority to protect Indian groups from state authority. This sovereign authority extends to Indian tribal courts, which adjudicate matters relating to Indian affairs. The U.S. Supreme Court heard a case in in 2008 concerning the extent of tribal courts' jurisdiction. In Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Cattle Co. (07-411), the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed a long-held principle principle that tribes do not have jurisdiction over non-Indians conducting activity on a non-Indian fee simple, even if on an Indian reservation, unless the activity threatens the welfare of the tribe.
There are numerous federal statutes dealing with Indian rights and governance, such as the Indian Reorganization Act, and the Indian Civil Rights Act (also known as the Indian Bill of Rights). 28 U.S.C. § 1360 deals with state civil jurisdiction in actions in which Native Americans are parties."