I’m with ya. I’ll defend to the death our right to free speech, but geez, these people are flat out freaks, hate-mongers and well, mean. And mean people suck.
Auntbeast
Who thinks a constitutional amendment preventing people from being dicks, providing for advanced traffic merging education and littering punishable by death might not be such a bad idea.
You First Amendment violator!
That’s pretty much the analogy I’d use, actually.
Bit of Googling shows that just shy of 50% of the land the reservation occupies is Indian-owned - I assume the remainder being owned by the Federal government. That makes the analogy problematic, but I’m not convinced that the portion which is Federal land would count as being public property.
And I still say that it’s impossible for the tribe to violate the First Amendment.
Zabali, tribal self-government and sovereignty does not mean that Indian tribes are separate nations or do not have to follow federal laws. After all, the link you provided shows plenty of instances where Congress enacts laws pertaining to reservations. If these were sovereign, as you seem to think, where does Congress get the authority to deal with them?
Tribes are part of the U.S. and the First Amendment applies to them. As long as the Phelps folks are staying on public property (sidewalks, roads, etc.), then they are protected by the First Amendment.
OK, as simply as possible:
The Indian Nations, as regards their recognized reservations, are sovereign entities which have entered into agreements with the United States under which U.S. law is applicable in some contexts on those reservations. Granted that the U.S. can certainly say by force majeure what will and will not be permitted, the recognition of Indian sovereignty is a part of our legal structure. The analogy to state governments is very apposite – there are things which states may not do legally as constituent parts of the United States, but there are many things in which they retain full sovereignty. For California to ban the smoking of tobacco products, for example, would likely be completely within its reserved police powers – and there is not a thing Congress could say about it, short of passing a constitutional amendment for state ratification.
There’s a careful and delicate line trod by Federal, state, and tribal governments on who may do what where. Certainly a small reservation in upstate New York would much prefer an arrangement where the New York State Police may arrest a man who committed a crime off the reservation and then took refuge there, over attempting to maintain a police force adequate to subduing and arresting him. But they are not equivalent to city or town governments as suggested by if6was9 – they retain the sovereignty they had as sovereign nations back in frontier days, subject to what they have yielded up to the U.S. to achieve recognition as constituent elements of the U.S., and any agreements they may have with the states within which they lie geographically.
That would mean that Roe v Wade would apply on the Pine Ridge Reservation? I could be mistaken, but I don’t think abortions are allowed even to preserve the life of the mother.
Cite, please. Everything I have seen says that Pine Ridge was considering opening an abortion clinic if the South Dakota ban on abortion was passed.
Indian Tribes cannot ban abortion with any more legality than a state.
In July North Carolina passed a law prohibiting such disruptions within 300 feet of funerals. It went into effect on December 1.
Link to a newspaper article from the home of USMC’s Camp LeJeune.
And yet, they have the power to tell a state law to take a flying leap by opening an abortion clinic in a state where abortion is banned? (Which is what you just said they were considering doing.) Some tribes can smoke peyote on their lands too, yet there is a Federal law saying the rest of us cannot smoke peyote if we do not belong to the tribes that can do so. I didn’t say they had limitless power, but I did point out that they retained many powers even though subject to Federal laws. Federal laws do not say you must let hate spewing hostile people onto your private property either.
Depending on the treaty, many tribes do not follow a variety of state laws. Of course, that’s not the issue here, because the First Amendment is in the federal consitution.
Actually, the reason they can do so is a federal law that allows peyote to be smoked if it is part of a religion’s rites. Some Indian religions involve smoking peyote. (Or was it a court case that allowed this? Either way, it is due to religion, not tribal status).
No, you said they were basically foreign nations where federal laws did not apply.
No, but the First Amendment does say that you must let hate spewing people onto public property, and that is what the Tribe was banning. Roads and sidewalks are public property, and no government can ban speech on them simply because they do not like the content of that speech.
Zabali, would you please post a CITE already?
Ivylass is the one to ask for a cite in this case, reread what I just said. I said “Which is what you just said they were considering doing.” to Renob who was talking to Ivylass. I did post cites as well, in other posts. Read what Polycarp said too, his explanation is more succinct and better put together Guin.
Um, dude! The protesters ARE going to be on public property. This whole issue is about the Tribe not letting them onto their PRIVATE property! :dubious: You really think that just anyone can go onto the reservation?! They have the absolute right to tell Joe Blow off the street who is not a Tribal member to take a hike and not come back. Even Tribes with casinos can do this.
I will add, pre-emptively that some Tribes are more laid back than others, who are rather like gated communities, with screening of who comes and goes. Tribal land is not public propertyin any case.
Roads and sidewalks are not private property.
Really? I need a cite on this one. I believe roads passing through reservations are public right-of-ways.
Here is a decent start for you, from the CNN article in the OP.
I will note that Shirley Phelps-Roper is a lawyer, so would be have more than a layman’s understanding of things.
Congress has the power to make laws concerning Native American Tribes through its interstate commerce clause which gives it the power to “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
A law usually does not apply to Native Americans unless it mentions them.
From here:
Now how can the First Amendment apply to Indian tribes? It was only applied to the states when Congress passed the 14th amendment. Never do any of our amendments talk about Indian tribes being subject to the restrictions of our Bill of Rights.
I’m no expert though, so I might be wrong.
No, the feds also get their power from a variety of treaties, court cases, and other things, as described in the link you mentioned.
From the link provided by Zabali above, describing laws passed by Congress governing tribes:
Zabali, I understand what the Phelps folks are doing. My quibble with you is not about that. It’s about your notion that Indian tribes are sovereign governments that are separate nations that can do whatever they want. They, in fact, are not. Tribal governments possess a lot of power, but they are not superior to the federal government.
You are zooming in on a small part of my text and repeating it as a mantra. Did you tune out and not read the rest of what has been said in this thread? I even admitted that Polycarp was more succinct and better phrased with his explanation… :dubious:
Of course I’ve read what was said in this thread. Most flatly refutes your earlier post that Indian tribes are sovereign nations on par with foreign governments. Polycarp’s post explains this. So do you now admit that your characterization that Indian tribes can do whatever they want within their borders is wrong?
Actually, I wrote the Three Affiliated Tribes to ask them to help better explain what I meant. Here is their reply in it’s entirety: