Native American Reservation bans Fred Phelps Protesters

In My Humble Opinion
1

Title says it all.

CNN Link.

IMHO this is a good move, and I wish to heck that local governments OFF the Reservations throughout the United States were able to legsilate a smidgen of respect and dignity for all of the rest of the familes who have been harrassed relentlessly on the very day, and at the very locale, where they are burying dead loved ones.

I know, that some municipalities are trying to pass such laws. I also am a big beleiver in the ACLU. I truly am. The conflict is really something. On the one hand, I do believe these lunatics have a right to say anything they want to.

OTOH, I think they have no right to do it close to people who are busy trying to bury a body. Isn’t it interesting that in the same country that bans protesters from being anywhere near the POTUS, keeping them held behind chain link fences in ( ironically ) “Free Speech Zones”, the folks of Fred Phelps’ little church can do so much damage to so many lives, getting as close as they dare to?

Ironic again.

I am well aware there have been previous threads regarding Phelps and his family of followers but in light of this decision by the Three Tribes Council, I felt it might be worth revisiting the topic.

Cartooniverse

2

Another erosion of free speech. Great. If the land is public, then even lunatics such as Phelps have a right to be on it. From the comments of Phelps, it appears they stay off of private land and only protest on public land. If that’s the case, the tribe’s action is a violation of the First Amendment.

3

Renob, I dont’ think the land is public. I believe reservations are separate “countries” inside the US. I don’t know what laws they must abide by, or if they must abide by the Constitution. Can someone shed light on this?

4

[QUOTE=Renob]
Another erosion of free speech. Great. If the land is public, then even lunatics such as Phelps have a right to be on it. From the comments of Phelps, it appears they stay off of private land and only protest on public land. If that’s the case, the tribe’s action is a violation of the First Amendment.
[/QUOTE]

It is considered a Sovereign nation, that can regulate what happens within the boundaries of it’s land. They have the power, and the right to ban whomever they choose to. They are not considered part of the United States, they are a seperate nation.

[QUOTE=Tribal Sovereignty site]
In fact, the U.S. Constitution specifically recognizes Indian tribes as distinct governments, along with foreign nations and the several states. ** Since the early 1800’s, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the principle that tribes did not lose their sovereign powers by becoming subject to the power of the federal government.**
[/QUOTE]

5

[QUOTE=Renob]
Another erosion of free speech.
[/QUOTE]

I’m all for free speech, but Phelps and his family cross well into the realm of fighting words and incitement of violence and public disorder, which is not protected speech. A reasonable case can be made that such behaviour isn’t protected by the First Amendment.

6

[QUOTE=RickJay]
I’m all for free speech, but Phelps and his family cross well into the realm of fighting words and incitement of violence and public disorder, which is not protected speech. A reasonable case can be made that such behaviour isn’t protected by the First Amendment.
[/QUOTE]

That is somewhat of a moot point, since the place in question is sovereign. :wink:

7

If Fred & his family are so gung ho about protesting at the funerals of alleged sinners, why are they wasting their time on such small time sinners?

Surely brave, bold. God-fearing folk like the Phelps clan should be going to the funerals of Mafia dons and waving “Vito Scungilli Burns In Hell” banners.

(Yeah, like Fred has the cojones.)

8

[QUOTE=Zabali_Clawbane]
It is considered a Sovereign nation, that can regulate what happens within the boundaries of it’s land. They have the power, and the right to ban whomever they choose to. They are not considered part of the United States, they are a seperate nation.
[/QUOTE]

No, they are not considered separate nations. They must still abide by the laws of the U.S. The First Amendment applies there just as it does anywhere else.

9

I should also note, Zabali, that you may want to read the entire article that you referenced. A little later on you would have noticed this Act on the list of bills Congress has passed to regulate Indian Tribes.

“The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, which applied most of the Bill of Rights’ requirements and guarantees to Indian tribal governments;”

Tribal governments are governed by federal law and varying degrees of state law.

10

Renob: You may want to reread the linked article in the OP. The Phelps crew are going to be protesting, on public rights of way that are outside the reservation, and the tribe is not preventing them from doing that. They are only forbidding them from entering the reservation, which is not public land.

Also, from my reading of it, it’s impossible for the tribe to violate the First Amendment.

11

[QUOTE=Renob]
I should also note, Zabali, that you may want to read the entire article that you referenced. A little later on you would have noticed this Act on the list of bills Congress has passed to regulate Indian Tribes.

“The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, which applied most of the Bill of Rights’ requirements and guarantees to Indian tribal governments;”

Tribal governments are governed by federal law and varying degrees of state law.
[/QUOTE]

They are still recognized as sovereign, and they can determine who can, and cannot come onto their reservation. The Supreme Court has upheld their right to do so. Reread the all of the quote in my previous post. The term SOVEREIGN is specifically used, with a precise meaning in mind. I don’t know why your mind is balking at abosorbing the meaning of it.

Plain and simple, the Phelps crew/Westboro Baptist church is prone to violence and hate, and the Tribe did not want them on their land. Have you read what they have done in the past?! Better, ask Baker, she lives in Topeka Kansas and has encountered him in person. I don’t blame them for not wanting him and his crew on their land. The quote below is a chip off the tip of the iceberg.

[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
Revision as of 17:33, 30 November 2006 by Alerante (The article is currently vandalized, again.)

In 1995, Phelps Sr.'s eldest grandson, Benjamin Phelps, was convicted of assault and disorderly conduct after spitting into the face of a passerby during a picket and then laughing. The security cameras of a nearby business caught the incident on tape.

Also in 2004, Margie Phelps and her son Jacob were arrested for trespassing, disorderly conduct and failure to obey after disregarding a police officer’s order that they were not allowed to enter a company’s private property with chairs and stand on them with an upside down flag and a picket sign.
[/QUOTE]

12

[QUOTE=Kal]
Renob: You may want to reread the linked article in the OP. The Phelps crew are going to be protesting, on public rights of way that are outside the reservation, and the tribe is not preventing them from doing that. They are only forbidding them from entering the reservation, which is not public land.

Also, from my reading of it, it’s impossible for the tribe to violate the First Amendment.
[/QUOTE]

You yourself ought to re-read my link. It goes on to outline Tribal Self Government, and how Federal Laws were encacted to strengthen such.

[QUOTE=Tribal Sovereignty site]
In 1934, federal policy changed again with passage of the Indian Reorganization Act, which restored tribal lands and permitted tribes to reorganize under federal law for purposes of self-government. Since then, Congress has passed several other landmark statutes to strengthen tribal self-government, including:

The Indian Self-Determination and Education Act of 1975 - which strongly reaffirmed Congress’ policy that tribal governments should be permitted to control education programs, contracts, and grants affecting Indians;
The Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993 - which reaffirmed the responsibility of the U.S. government to tribal governments, including the protection of the sovereignty of each tribal government; and confirmed that Congress, through statutes, treaties and administrative authorities, has recognized the self-determination, self-reliance and inherent sovereignty of Indian tribes.

[/QUOTE]

Sovereign

[QUOTE=Merriam-Webster’s]
Sovereign
1 a : one possessing or held to possess sovereignty
b : one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere

[/QUOTE]

Sovereignty

[QUOTE=Merriam-Webster’s]
Sovereignty

2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic

b : freedom from external control

[/QUOTE]

13

[QUOTE=Zabali_Clawbane]
You yourself ought to re-read my link. It goes on to outline Tribal Self Government, and how Federal Laws were encacted to strengthen such.
[/quote]
You probably should have aimed that this at Renob. He’s the one having the problem with it all.

14

:smack: You are absolutely correct Kal! My apologies! Did it at least give you some amusement to read? :o :o :o That was quite a brainfart. I only meant to post, and I know better than to hit reply when I don’t want to quote. For some reason I had a wire crossed or something and clicked “reply” on your post and not “Post Reply” at the bottom of the page. Sheesh!

15

[QUOTE=Zabali_Clawbane]
It is considered a Sovereign nation, that can regulate what happens within the boundaries of it’s land. They have the power, and the right to ban whomever they choose to. They are not considered part of the United States, they are a seperate nation.
[/QUOTE]

This is flat out wrong.

Here is a link, albeit Wikipedia that clarifies the relationship somewhat. They are part of the US and they are subject to federal law. They are not subject to state law which is why the may have casinos which may be banned under state law.

What these laws have done is clarify what powers the tribes have. The tribes are sovereign in the sense that a state might be sovereign. They have their own courts and systems of law.

They are not free to enter into treaties with foreign nations. They cannot coin their own money. The type of sovereignty they possess is more equivalent to a state government. I’ll try to dig up a better link in the morning.

16

[QUOTE=Renob]
No, they are not considered separate nations. They must still abide by the laws of the U.S. The First Amendment applies there just as it does anywhere else.
[/QUOTE]

I assume you mean “Anywhere else in the US”, because the First Amendment sure as hell doesn’t apply- in any legal sense- in all those other countries that you may be aware exist too. :wink:

17

Sites above say that the Nation is still U.S. territory. Thus they boil down to a local Town Council saying “We ain’t lettin’ them [fundies mezcans terrists AY-rabs] do anything that we disagree with. I got yer constitution right ere.”

18

See? This is exactly what the Westboro Fag Church wants. People like me, who DESPISE them, yet still defending (lamely) their right to do it. The Three Tribes fell right into their trap. They passed an unconstitutional, Bush-like resolution to ban all opposition! That same resolution could be used to arrest someone who is against gambling, or thinks the Chief is bad, or thinks no one from the tribe should fight in Iraq. This is the slippery slope…

19

If that is the case, then why has the Westboro Baptist church tamely agreed to picket off of Tribal lands? Why hasn’t the ACLU jumped up in their defense yet again? I don’t think they will, and I think that if WBC does take the tribe to court, they will get laughed right back out the door. Finally, someone can legally tell these asshats “No!”. Now, I am going to sit back and savor the sensation. :smiley:

20

Can I make an analogy and ask you guys if it’s correct?

Is this similar to me holding a wake inside my home and keeping the Phelpses out of my living room, but allowing them to do what they want on the sidewalk?