Let’s be realistic, if no treaty had ever been broken Europe would still be ruled by the Romans and I’d be posting this in Latin. I guess you could consider the declaration of independence void as it did not respect the previous order under which the colonists lived.
The tribes are not independent countries, they are part of the USA and should be subject to all the rights and all the obligations.
Still I find it amusing that the USA finds it is OK for the indians on American soil to do certain things like not allow parents the freedom to educate their children as they see fit and yet when this happens in Cuba or China they are up in arms about it.
And speaking of respecting treaties… I believe it was the State of Virginia who denied due process to a South American man who was entitled to consular representation. The appeal went all the way to the supreme court who said tough cheese and the guy was executed anyway in direct violation of the treaty with that nation (i forget which one it was).
This whole situation with Indian tribes is getting ridiculous. A few of the larger tribes are doing OK, but many tribes are so desparate for members that they are accepting people who are only 1/16 Native American (of that tribe), or less. Even some Native Americans have admitted that most of their tribe’s members are white people who happen to have an Indian anscestor somewhere. Alot of the tribes that have “come out of the woodwork” here in Michigan fall into this category of tribes that are almost completely assimilated into mainstream American society.
The answer to the OP may depend on the reservation in question.
There is a reservation that straddles the international border, and is located in both Canada and the United States (Ontario and New York). This solves the problem of how you would get the cigars there physically, short of flying them in. Since Canada has never joined the U.S. embargo of Cuba, there’s no legal difficulty bringing Cuban cigars into the part of the reserve that is in Canada.
The next stage of the argument turns on a trilateral treaty, between the Canadian, U.S. and tribal governments. There is some dispute about its exact effect, but one interpretation is that it allows the Indians on this reserve to to take goods anywhere in the reserve, without regard to the Canada-United States boundary. So, the argument is that you can legally bring the Cuban cigars from the Canadian side to the U.S. side of the reservation. Since this is a treaty right, it presumably can’t be restricted by U.S. federal statute [Aside: is that right, SofaKing?]
Now, assuming that is correct, the cigars are legally in U.S. territory. Is there any problem with taking them out of the reserve on the U.S. side?
P.S. - Dominicans are over-rated - they make lousy crêpe-rollers.
More information about the reservation that jti mentioned. One interesting tidbit from that site is “The Mohawk Nation Council, through the Grand Council at Onondaga, issues passports which have international recognition.” I doubt whether the passports are recognized by either the United States or Canada.
What treaty are you referring to, jti? Do you have its name and date? The only treaty I can find is the 1797 treaty between the US and the Mohawks. The US stopped making treaties with the Indians in 1871. Was it a US-Canada treaty that happened to involve the Mohawks, or a trilateral “agreement”, or a pre-1871 treaty?
That’s pretty dead on, jti. It is well known (or at least widely believed) in the circles I travel within that the St. Regis Mohawk reservation has been a haven for smuggling operations since before Prohibition. Despite the fact that the state of New York is one of the most anti-Indian states in the country, the Mohawks became strangely affluent (relative to other tribes) shortly after Canada imposed that exhorbitant tax on cigarettes. They are fiercely independent, and have somehow recently managed to get approval to open a casino in Monticello, hundreds of miles from St. Regis, and perfectly positioned to compete with Atlantic City.
Speaking specifically to New York and one of the most inflammatory incidents to come out of Indian Country in recent years, New York was specifically directed by the Supreme Court to rectify a situation with the Oneida Tribe (New York) for a little indiscretion the state had committed. It seems that in the early 1800’s, officials from New York had impersonated the federal government and signed a treaty with the Oneidas which had the unusual effect of making a large part of their reservation open to sale to non-Indians. In the 1970’s it was decided by SCt that this was clearly a violation of the Non-Intercourse Act, and directed New York to either compensate the Tribe monetarily or come to some other amenable agreement–the tribe simply wanted first option on any reservation property up for sale.
New York has delayed any agreement to this date, to the point where the Bureau of Indian Affairs recommended that the tribe bring suit against the individual land owners who occupy reservation land, which Oneida did. Predictably, and perhaps intentionally on the part of New York, this has resulted in an enormous anti-Indian backlash within the state. Tom Tureen would be turning over in his grave, if he were not alive.
Congress cannot contradict a treaty without specifically repudiating the terms of the treaty itself, as treaty agreements are of a more unassailable nature than your average Public Law. I do recall that for awhile in the 1950’s, Congress found it easier to “terminate” tribes rather than reverse the treaties they made. I’ll be happy to dive into Kappler’s Treaties on Monday to identify the specific treaty if I can’t find it at http://www.nara.gov.
Hmmm… I have heard of Congress consolidating several small, almost extinct tribes onto a single reservation. Is this what you were referring to, or was “termination” something different?