• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Cherokee Nation appoints Representative

Fanatical Meat

Fanatical Meat

Lifer
This could get interesting

For all the Warren haters it’s not her.

The Cherokee Nation announced Thursday that it intends to appoint a delegate to the US House of Representatives, asserting for the first time a right promised to the tribe in a nearly 200-year-old treaty with the federal government.
It was a historic step for the Oklahoma-based Cherokee Nation and its nearly 370,000 members, coming about a week after Chuck Hoskin Jr. was sworn in as principal chief of the tribe. The Cherokee Nation says it's the largest tribal nation in the US and one of three federally recognized Cherokee tribes.
The move raises questions about what that representation in Congress would look like and whether the US will honor an agreement it made almost two centuries ago.
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/25/politics/cherokee-nation-congressional-delegate-treaty/index.html
 
Greenman said:
Can't find the actual document. I'd like to read it.
If a congressional representative was part of the deal, they should have one.
Click to expand...

Per the story it was offered in a treaty around 200 years ago, other than that there is no description attached. Would it be a voting member or a member like PR?
Does this effect the other tribes since they do not have representation?
Would this Congress critter just be appointed by the tribe as in no vote or limited vote?

I predict it will simply be stonewalled and go nowhere but who knows especially if it’s the Houses job to decide what that Representative should be/what powers that Representative should have.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
Per the story it was offered in a treaty around 200 years ago, other than that there is no description attached. Would it be a voting member or a member like PR?
Does this effect the other tribes since they do not have representation?
Would this Congress critter just be appointed by the tribe as in no vote or limited vote?

I predict it will simply be stonewalled and go nowhere but who knows especially if it’s the Houses job to decide what that Representative should be/what powers that Representative should have.
Click to expand...
If the document simply says they get a congressional Representative, then they get one elected in the same way as all the rest.

It's pretty strange that they waited two hundred years to invoke this right, but if it's their due then it's their due, end of story.
 
Greenman said:
If the document simply says they get a congressional Representative, then they get one elected in the same way as all the rest.

It's pretty strange that they waited two hundred years to invoke this right, but if it's their due then it's their due, end of story.
Click to expand...

Appears *take this with a grain of salt* the Cherokee forgot about it.
In the article someone from the tribe stated they tried in the past but couldn’t make any headway so they gave up.
Not sure what the “past” is other than the past.
 
Another interesting thing is the Representative would represent something like 37,000 people which is far fewer than any other House member, plus it gives more votes to a State or area than what is normal.
Tons of interesting stuff regarding this position, plus a side of #bothsides!
 
Fanatical Meat said:
Another interesting thing is the Representative would represent something like 37,000 people which is far fewer than any other House member, plus it gives more votes to a State or area than what is normal.
Tons of interesting stuff regarding this position, plus a side of #bothsides!
Click to expand...
370,000 people.

200 years ago Native Americans were not considered citizens and could not vote. A promise to allow the Cherokee to select a Congressional Representative may have since been fulfilled as they now have full voting rights. We need to see the original agreement.
 
Treaty of New Echota:

https://americanindian.si.edu/static/nationtonation/pdf/Treaty-of-New-Echota-1835.pdf

ARTICLE 7. The Cherokee nation having already made great progress in civilization and deeming it important that every proper and laudible inducement should be offered to their people to improve their condition as well as to guard and secure in the most effectual manner the rights guarantied to them in this treaty, and with a view to illustrate the liberal and enlarged policy of the Government of the United States towards the Indians in their removal beyond the territorial limits of the States, it is stipulated that they shall be entitled to a delegate in the House of Representatives of the United States whenever Congress shall make provision for the same.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
here is a link to the treaty of new echota 1835
https://americanindian.si.edu/static/nationtonation/pdf/Treaty-of-New-Echota-1835.pdf

ARTICLE 7. The Cherokee nation having already made great progress in civilization and deeming it important that every proper and laudable inducement should be offered to their people to improve their condition as well as to guard and secure in the most effectual manner the rights guarantied to them in this treaty, and with a view to illustrate the liberal and enlarged policy of the Government of the United States towards the Indians in their removal beyond the territorial limits of the States, it is stipulated that they shall be entitled to a delegate in the House of Representatives of the United States whenever Congress shall make provision for the same.

I wonder what the phase "whenever Congress shall make provision for the same." will be interpret to mean because that is a key aspect of this paragraph.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
Appears *take this with a grain of salt* the Cherokee forgot about it.
In the article someone from the tribe stated they tried in the past but couldn’t make any headway so they gave up.
Not sure what the “past” is other than the past.
Click to expand...

It was a useless thing or seen that way, and likely not to be allowed then and maybe not now. The SCOTUS voided treaty time and again once the government got its way.

There's no right to vote so they will just sit in a corner and talk to people who have no interest in them because there aren't enough Cherokees to be worth helping. Dems have Blacks, Reps have Trump have racists and those will be the ones catered to as always.
 
Seems problematic from a Constitutional perspective, at least as far as a voting member goes as they are not considered a state.
 
fskimospy said:
Seems problematic from a Constitutional perspective, at least as far as a voting member goes as they are not considered a state.
Click to expand...
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 would be the likely basis for challenging implementation of the treaty provision. Prior to this act, Native American voting rights (and therefore Congressional representation) were a state by state mess. The Oklahoma Enabling Act of 1906 made most Cherokee living in Oklahoma citizens so this might also serve as a point to challenge the treaty.
 
Last edited:
IronWing said:
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 would be the likely basis for challenging implementation of the treaty provision. Prior to this act, Native American voting rights (and therefore Congressional representation) were a state by state mess.
Click to expand...

I mean more that article 1 seems pretty explicit that only states get representatives. It doesn’t seem to matter if they can’t vote but if this were a ‘real’ rep I suspect it would.
 
fskimospy said:
I mean more that article 1 seems pretty explicit that only states get representatives. It doesn’t seem to matter if they can’t vote but if this were a ‘real’ rep I suspect it would.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the treaty to suggest that the Cherokee representative would be a non-voting member. I think that any legal challenge to seating a Cherokee representative would be based on a theory that the treaty law was superseded rather than that the treaty was un-Constitutional. Having the treaty declared un-Constitutional would probably be a significant win for the Cherokee though.
 
The tribe should belong to which ever state they are in. And not be considered independent.

We've enough issues with respecting State's rights, let alone anyone else's beyond that.
 
IronWing said:
There is nothing in the treaty to suggest that the Cherokee representative would be a non-voting member. I think that any legal challenge to seating a Cherokee representative would be based on a theory that the treaty law was superseded rather than that the treaty was un-Constitutional. Having the treaty declared un-Constitutional would probably be a significant win for the Cherokee though.
Click to expand...

I agree there’s nothing in the treaty to suggest that but in the end you can’t supersede the constitution with a treaty.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
It was a useless thing or seen that way, and likely not to be allowed then and maybe not now. The SCOTUS voided treaty time and again once the government got its way.

There's no right to vote so they will just sit in a corner and talk to people who have no interest in them because there aren't enough Cherokees to be worth helping. Dems have Blacks, Reps have Trump have racists and those will be the ones catered to as always.
Click to expand...

Need to clarify... Reps have "White" racists all other racists are on the D team.
 
So far as I can tell, the goal is a non-voting member right now. This article has Hoskin [the new principal chief of the tribe] saying, "I think we have to look at the roadmaps that are laid out as a suggested path to seating our delegate, and certainly the delegates afforded the territories give us an idea of what is workable in the Congress". The "territories" being those like Guam and the USVI that have non-voting delegates.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/25/politics/cherokee-nation-congressional-delegate-treaty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top