Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Poll

Why did Sarah Palin resign?

Personal scandal
 5 (17.2%)
Probable indictment
 7 (24.1%)
Just plain craziness
 3 (10.3%)
Looooong lead up to 2012
 4 (13.8%)
Something else
 2 (6.9%)
Some combination of the above
 8 (27.6%)

Total Members Voted: 29

Author Topic: The Thread on Politics  (Read 423326 times)

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #4510 on: May 10, 2008, 01:59:52 AM »
(cont'd)

Obama initially responded to that challenge with his speech in Philadelphia on March 18. While condemning Wright's words, he placed them in a historical context of racial oppression and said, "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community." (More recently, of course, Obama did renounce him.) But in the Philadelphia speech, called "A More Perfect Union," Obama also outlined a racially universal definition of American citizenship and affirmed his commitment to represent all Americans as President. "I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together--unless we perfect our union by understanding that we have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction."

A mere three days after Obama spoke those words, Bill Clinton made this statement in North Carolina about a potential Clinton-McCain general election matchup: "I think it'd be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country. And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics." Whether or not this statement constituted McCarthyism, as one Obama surrogate alleged and as Clinton supporters vigorously denied, the timing of the remark made its meaning quite clear: controversies relating to Obama's race render him less fit than either Hillary or McCain to run for president as a patriotic American. A couple of weeks later, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen went so far as to call on Obama to make another speech, modeled after John F. Kennedy's declaration in 1960 that, despite his Catholicism, he would respect the separation of church and state as President--as though Obama's blackness were a sign of allegiance to some entity, like the Vatican, other than the United States of America.

In the Democratic debates, enabled by the moderators, Hillary Clinton has increasingly deployed issues of race and patriotism as a wedge strategy against her opponent. First, in the debate in Cleveland on February 26, she pressed Obama not only to denounce but to reject Louis Farrakhan--to whom he was spuriously linked through Reverend Wright, who had taken a trip with the black nationalist leader in the 1980s. In style as well as content, that attack was a harbinger of things to come. In the most recent debate, ABC's George Stephanopolous and Charles Gibson peppered Obama with questions such as, "Do you believe [Wright] is as patriotic as you are?" and, regarding former Weatherman Bill Ayers, a Chicago neighbor and Obama supporter, "Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?" Time after time, Clinton picked up the line and ran with it. "You know, these are problems, and they raise questions in people's minds. And so this is a legitimate area...for people to be exploring and trying to find answers," she said, seeming to abandon her argument that these issues are fair game now only because they will be raised by Republicans later and thus are relevant to an evaluation of Obama's electability.

The Wright, Farrakhan and Ayers controversies have been fueled by a craven media, and ABC's performance in the debate has rightly been condemned. But given that Clinton is the one who is running for President and who purports to represent liberal ideals, her complicity in such attempts to establish guilt by association is far more troubling. While she has dealt gingerly with the matter of Wright in the wake of his recent appearance at the National Press Club--accusing Republicans of politicizing the issue--she also took pains to remind reporters that she "would not have stayed in that church under those circumstances."

It's disappointing, to say the least, to see the first viable female contender for the presidency participate in attacks on her black opponent's patriotism, which exploit an anxious climate around national security that gives white men an edge both over women and people of color--who tend to be viewed, respectively, as weak and potentially traitorous. Says Paula Giddings, "This idea of nationalism and patriotism pulling at everyone has demanded hypermasculine men, more like McCain than the feline Obama, and demanded women whose role is to be maternal more than anything else."

For Hillary Clinton, the gendered terrain of post-9/11 national security politics has been treacherous indeed. As Elizabeth Drew observed in The New York Review of Books, Clinton took steps in the Senate, like joining the Armed Services Committee, "to protect herself from the sexist notion that a woman might be soft on national security." As a 2002 study by the White House Project, a women's leadership group, found, "Women candidates start out with a serious disadvantage--voters tend to view women as less effective and tough. Recent events of war, terrorism, and recession have only...increased the salience of these dimensions." Clinton has been quite successful in allaying these concerns, although she faces a Catch-22: her reputed toughness and ruthlessness have helped ratchet up her high negatives. The White House Project study found that a woman candidate faces a unique tension between the need to show herself "in a light that is personally appealing, while also showing that she has the kind of strength needed for the job she is seeking."

Of course, Clinton's decision to play the hawk may have had other motivations. Perhaps she really believed that voting to authorize the war in Iraq was the right thing to do (which is, arguably, even more worrying). But her posture in this campaign--threatening to "totally obliterate" Iran after being asked how she would respond in the highly improbable event of an Iranian nuclear strike against Israel, for example--has at least something to do with a desire to compete on a macho foreign policy playing field. It's the woman in this Democratic primary race who has the cowboy swagger: the nationalist and militaristic rhetoric, the whiskey-swilling photo-ops, the gotcha attacks for perceived insults to a working-class electorate (as in "Bittergate") that is usually depicted as white and male.

Clinton has, to be sure, faced a raw misogyny that has been more out in the open than the racial attacks on Obama have been. But while sexism may be more casually accepted, racism, which is often coded, is more insidious and trickier to confront. Clinton's response to "Iron my shirt" was immediate and straightforward: "Oh, the remnants of sexism, alive and well." Says Kimberlé Crenshaw, law professor at Columbia and UCLA and executive director of the African American Policy Forum, "While sexism can be denounced more directly, that doesn't mean it's worse. Things that are racist have yet to be labeled and understood as such."

While on occasion Obama's campaign has complained of racial slights, Obama himself has avoided raising the charge directly. Even so, Clinton supporters make the twisted claim that it is Obama who has racialized the campaign. "While promoting Obama as a 'post-racial' figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics," wrote Sean Wilentz in The New Republic in an article titled "Race Man." Bill Clinton recently groused that the Obama camp, in the controversy over his Jackson remark, "played the race card on me."

As for the way the Clinton campaign has dealt with race, Crenshaw says, "It started with a small drumbeat, but as the campaign has proceeded, as Hillary has taken part in things, more people are really seeing this as a 'line in the sand' kind of moment."
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #4511 on: May 10, 2008, 02:00:13 AM »
(cont'd)

Among the black feminists interviewed for this article, reactions to the declarations of sexism's greater toll by Clinton supporters--and their demand that all women back their candidate out of gender solidarity, regardless of the broader politics of the campaign--ran the gamut from astonishment to dismay to fury. Patricia Hill Collins, a sociology professor at the University of Maryland and author of Black Feminist Thought, recalls how, before they were reduced to their race or gender, the candidates were not seen solely through the prism of identity, and many Democrats were thrilled with the choices before them. But of the present, she says, "It is such a distressing, ugly period. Clinton has manipulated ideas about race, but Obama has not manipulated similar ideas about gender." This has exacerbated longstanding racial tensions within the women's movement, Collins notes, and is likely to alienate young black women who might otherwise have been receptive to feminism. "We had made progress in getting younger black women to see that gender does matter in their lives. Now they are going to ask, What kind of white woman is Hillary Clinton?"

The sense of progress unraveling is profound. "What happened to the perspective that the failures of feminism lay in pandering to racism, to everyone nodding that these were fatal mistakes--how is it that all that could be jettisoned?" asks Crenshaw, who co-wrote a piece with Eve Ensler on the Huffington Post called "Feminist Ultimatums: Not in Our Name." Crenshaw says that, appalled as she is by the sexism toward Clinton, she found herself stunned by some of the arguments pro-Hillary feminists were making. "There is a myopic focus on the aspiration of having a woman in the White House--perhaps not any woman, but it seems to be pretty much enough that she be a Democratic woman." This stance, says Crenshaw, "is really a betrayal."

Frances Kissling, the former president of Catholics for a Free Choice, attributes this go-for-broke attitude to the mindset of corporate feminism. "There's a way in which feminists who have been seriously engaged in electoral politics for a long time, the institutional DC feminist leadership, they are just with Hillary Clinton come hell or high water. I think they have accepted, as she has accepted, a similar career trajectory. They are not uncomfortable with what has gone on in the campaign, because they see electoral campaigns as mere instruments for getting elected. This is just the way it is. We have to get elected."

The implications of all this for the future of feminism depend significantly on the outcome of the primary, says Kissling. "If Clinton wins, the older-line women's movement will continue; it will be a continuation of power for them. If she doesn't win, it will be a death knell for those people. And that may be a good thing--that a younger generation will start to take over."

Many younger women, indeed, have responded to the admonishments of their pro-Hillary second-wave elders by articulating a sophisticated political orientation that includes feminism but is not confined to it. They may support Obama, but they still abhor the sexism Clinton has faced. And they detect--and reject--a tinge of sexism among male peers who have developed man-crushes on the dashing senator from Illinois. "Even while they voice dismay over the retro tone of the pro-Clinton feminist whine, a growing number of young women are struggling to describe a gut conviction that there is something dark and funky, and probably not so female-friendly, running below the frantic fanaticism of their Obama-loving compatriots," wrote Rebecca Traister in Salon.

It's not just young feminists who have taken such a nuanced view. Calling themselves Feminists for Peace and Obama, 1,500 prominent progressive feminists--including Kissling, Barbara Ehrenreich and this magazine's Katha Pollitt--signed on to a statement endorsing him and disavowing Clinton's militaristic politics. "Issues of war and peace are also part of a feminist agenda," they declared.

In some sense, this is a clarifying moment as well as a wrenching one. For so many years, feminists have been engaged in a pushback against the right that has obscured some of the real and important differences among them. "Today you see things you might not have seen. It's clearer now about where the lines are between corporate feminism and more grassroots, global feminism," says Crenshaw. Women who identify with the latter movement are saying, as she puts it, "'Wait a minute, that's not the banner we are marching under!'"

Feminist Obama supporters of all ages and hues, meanwhile, are hoping that he comes out of this bruising primary with his style of politics intact. While he calls it "a new kind of politics," Clinton and Obama are actually very similar in their records and agendas (which is perhaps why this contest has fixated so obsessively on their gender and race). But in his rhetoric and his stance toward the world outside our borders, Obama does appear to offer a way out of the testosterone-addled GOP framework. As he said after losing Pennsylvania, "We can be a party that thinks the only way to look tough on national security is to talk, and act, and vote like George Bush and John McCain. We can use fear as a tactic and the threat of terrorism to scare up votes. Or we can decide that real strength is asking the tough questions before we send our troops to fight."

As comedian Chris Rock quipped, Bush "screwed up so bad that he's made it hard for a white man to run for President." Rock spoke too soon: many are hungry for a shift, but the country needs the right push to get there. Unfortunately, from Hillary Clinton, it's getting a shove in the wrong direction.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080519/betsyreed
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

mbw

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5038
  • TTTundra Law 2012
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #4512 on: May 10, 2008, 02:21:38 AM »
That's a very provocative piece, Miss P.  And being neutral in this race (despite having worked for the last three Democratic nominees as paid campaign staff) I'll certainly chew it over.

To change gears just slightly, a new issue came out which I blogged about today, and since it intersects my world with that of many African Americans, and is a legal issue, I was curious as to your (plural) take.  The article was in today's The Hill (I'll quote extensively, and claim fair use):

Obama weighs in against CBC legislation on Cherokees
By Kevin Bogardus
Posted: 05/09/08 01:19 PM [ET]
Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has weighed in against legislation proposed by the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) that would punish the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.

CBC lawmakers have proposed a number of provisions this year that would cut off federal funding to the tribe because of its decision in March 2007 to remove the Freedmen — descendants of freed slaves once owned by tribe members — from Cherokee membership.

But Obama disagrees with those measures. In a statement to The Hill provided by his Senate office, the Illinois Democrat said that although he opposes unwarranted tribal disenrollment, Capitol Hill should not get involved.

“Discrimination anywhere is intolerable, but the Cherokee are dealing with this issue in both tribal and federal courts . . . I do not support efforts to undermine these legal processes and impose a congressional solution,” said Obama. “Tribes have a right to be self-governing and we need to respect that, even if we disagree, which I do in this case. We must have restraint in asserting federal power in such circumstances.”

Obama’s position on the Freedmen issue was first reported by the blog NowPublic.com and has since been confirmed by The Hill.

Representatives for the Cherokee have made a similar argument in that the complicated issue needs to be resolved in court, not by Congress. Until that litigation is settled, the Freedmen still have tribal citizenship rights.

Members of the CBC have said the tribe betrayed an agreement it signed with the U.S. government by removing the Freedmen. The Treaty of 1866 gave tribal citizenship rights to the group, according to the CBC.

The Cherokee disagree, however, pointing to legislation passed by Congress in the early 1900s and court rulings that revoked citizenship rights for Freedmen descendants.

Nevertheless, lawmakers have offered measures to stop federal funding for the tribe until the Freedmen are accepted back into the Cherokees' ranks.

For example, Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.) has sponsored a bill that would cut off roughly $300 million in federal funds to the Cherokee. Plus, Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) passed an amendment to a Native American housing bill that would halt federal housing assistance to the tribe.

Watt, who has endorsed Obama for president, downplayed any difference the senator has with the CBC on the battle over the Freedmen.

“This is not a fight between us and Barack. I think he is on our side,” said Watt. “This is a fight between the Congressional Black Caucus and the Cherokee.”

In a March letter, Watt, Watson and other CBC members warned Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that Watt’s funding ban for the Cherokee must be included in the Senate version of the Native American housing bill. Otherwise, the caucus would lobby against the bill.

Thirty-five CBC members signed that letter. Obama was not one of them.

---

Any thoughts on the matter?  While I'm Abenaki, my spouse is Cherokee and I worked on the last Cherokee principal chief election (for the opponent, a law professor at Kansas and former CNO Supreme Court justice who ruled in favor of the Freedman) and so am fairly well versed on the issue. 
I'm in a lynch mob?  I had no idea.  This is really worrying; I really don't have time for another extra-curricular activity.

space for rent.

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #4513 on: May 10, 2008, 04:53:58 AM »
Any thoughts on the matter?  While I'm Abenaki, my spouse is Cherokee and I worked on the last Cherokee principal chief election (for the opponent, a law professor at Kansas and former CNO Supreme Court justice who ruled in favor of the Freedman) and so am fairly well versed on the issue. 

This is really interesting and I wish I knew more about the issue so that I had something worthwhile to say.  I'd really like to learn more and hear your thoughts.

Instinctively, I strongly oppose the Cherokee's decision to disenroll the Freedmen, though I confess ignorance of the background for the decision (other than a faint memory that this was by popular vote -- and citizenship-removal is surely not something that should be left to the tyranny of the majority).  (Sometime when you are feeling very patient would you enlighten an ignorant interfriend about the politics behind these seemingly routine disenfranchisement decisions?)  On the other hand, I am not sure why stripping the tribe of its federal funding is the appropriate remedy; the federal obligation to the Cherokee people who depend on this money is both profound and unrelated to the rights of Cherokee Freedmen and the nation's treaty obligations.  Moreover -- again, without knowing much of anything -- I don't trust congress to respect tribal sovereignty, so this doesn't pass the sniff test.  And yet, and yet . . . something doesn't sit right about Obama's position, either.  Does tribal sovereignty really imply the right to eat your own?  Should matters like this really be resolved in tribal courts (or on the DC Circuit -- sheesh) to the exclusion of all other forums?  Does congress really have nothing to say about the rights of Cherokee Freedmen?  It looks as if Obama would treat even fundamental questions of citizenship and group rights as a mere dispute among private parties (as if citizenship were merely a contract).  That doesn't sound too good to me. (Perhaps my suspicion stems from a more general fear that Obama's just a neoliberal in progressive clothing.)
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

A.

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 15712
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #4514 on: May 10, 2008, 08:56:02 AM »
Interesting article, P.  Thanks for posting.

Regarding the Cherokee, I kinda agree with Obama's sovereignty argument.  And for me, the federal funding is simply a concomitant of that: do what you want, but if we don't like it, don't expect any money.  I support this policy w/r/t any "sovereign" that gets our money.

mbw

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5038
  • TTTundra Law 2012
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #4515 on: May 10, 2008, 10:03:03 AM »
Miss P., you're good.  You hit on many of the significant issues, even without knowing the details of the case.

To give a bit of background, when the Cherokee Nation signed the 1866 treaty with the US, they agreed that the Freedmen, their former slaves, would remain Cherokee citizens (the Cherokee constitution of a few years previous had already made the Freedmen citizens.)  When the Dawes Act was passed, with the goal of destroying tribes and assimilating Indians into mainstream culture, a census was taken of all Cherokee citizens, including intermarried whites, Freedmen, Shawnee and Delaware.  Only the Freedmen, many of whom had Indian ancestry, did not have their "blood quantum" listed on the Rolls.  Subsequently, the Dawes Rolls became the document to which all Cherokee must prove lineage for tribal citizenship, a position reaffirmed when the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma was re-recognized as a tribe in 1970 (having been terminated like many US tribes during the "Termination Years" following the Dawes Act.)

Before 1970, Cherokee chiefs were not democratically elected - Ross Swimmer was the first such chief.  He was also a staunch Republican and "thinblood" (low blood quantum) and many of the Freedmen were opposed to his policies.  So Swimmer decided, for political expediency, to have them disenrolled.  Thus, the battle Chad Smith has undertaken since being elected Principal Chief a nearly a decade ago is not new - he's just following in the footsteps of his mentor, Swimmer (who, btw, is now the Special Trustee for the Interior Department, and heavily involved in the Cobell case.)

A few years ago, the CNO supreme court determined that disenrollment of the Freedmen would violate the tribe's constitution, as well as the 1866 Treaty.  So Chad Smith quickly put together the 2006 referendum, in which fewer than 6000 of the tribe's 250,000 citizens participated, and in which the Freedmen themselves were not allowed to vote.  The Freedmen then sued the CNO in federal court.  What we're seeing this week is the circuit court seeming to agree that the Cherokee "treatied away" a small bit of their sovereignty regarding determining citizenship when they signed the 1866 treaty.  However, this case will most like go all the way to the SCOTUS.

I disagree with Obama's stance here.  The Dawes Act created a massive trust relationship between the US and the tribes, and Congress is the key protector of that relationship.  Yes, they screw it up all the time, as do the courts and the Executive Branch, but it is part of their duty, just as it is the duty of the Senate to ratify (and uphold) treaties.  The CNO knew the consequences - the Seminole lost their federal funding a decade ago when they disenrolled their Freedmen citizens.  And since the House controls funding, they hold the purse strings in the "domestic-dependent" relationship tribes find themselves in today.

Well, that's pretty long already, and I need coffee, but I hope it offers a bit more background to continue the discussion.
I'm in a lynch mob?  I had no idea.  This is really worrying; I really don't have time for another extra-curricular activity.

space for rent.

blk_reign

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 7978
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #4516 on: May 10, 2008, 10:35:14 AM »
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080508_a_slap_in_the_face/?ln

A Slap in the Face

Posted on May 8, 2008

By Eugene Robinson

WASHINGTON—From the beginning, Hillary Clinton has campaigned as if the Democratic nomination were hers by divine right. That’s why she is falling short—and that’s why she should be persuaded to quit now, rather than later, before her majestic sense of entitlement splits the party along racial lines.

If that sounds harsh, look at the argument she made Wednesday, in an interview with USA Today, as to why she should be the nominee instead of Barack Obama. She cited an Associated Press article “that found how Senator Obama’s support ... among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again. I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on.”

As a statement of fact, that’s debatable at best. As a rationale for why Democratic Party superdelegates should pick her over Obama, it’s a slap in the face to the party’s most loyal constituency—African-Americans—and a repudiation of principles the party claims to stand for. Here’s what she’s really saying to party leaders: There’s no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you’ll be sorry.

How silly of me. I thought the Democratic Party believed in a colorblind America.

In private conversations last year, several of Clinton’s high-profile African-American supporters made that same argument to me—that America wasn’t “ready” for a black president, that this simple fact doomed Obama to failure, that a Clinton Restoration was the best result that African-Americans could realistically hope for. Polls at the time showed Clinton leading Obama among black voters, a finding that reflected not only Clinton’s greater name recognition but also considerable skepticism about a black candidate’s ability to draw white support.

Obama did prove he could win support from whites, of course, beginning in Iowa. He and Clinton effectively divided the party into demographic constituencies. Among the groups that have tended to vote for Clinton are white voters making less than $50,000 a year; among those who have turned out to vote for Obama are African-Americans, whose doubts about his prospects clearly have been allayed.

Assuming that Obama is the eventual nominee, he will have some work to do in reuniting the party. But there’s no reason to think he won’t succeed—unless Clinton drives a wedge between important elements of the party’s historical coalition.

Lower-income white Democrats may well defect to John McCain in the fall if Obama is the nominee, Clinton is arguing, whereas African-Americans—who have been choosing Obama by 9 to 1—are going to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter what. Thus, she claims, she can better knit the party back together.

Let’s examine those premises. These are white Democrats we’re talking about, voters who generally share the party’s philosophy. So why would these Democrats refuse to vote for a nominee running on Democratic principles against a self-described conservative Republican? The answer, which Clinton implies but doesn’t quite come out and say, is that Obama is black—and that white people who are not wealthy are irredeemably racist.

The other notion—that Clinton could position herself as some kind of Great White Hope and still expect African-American voters to give her their enthusiastic support in the fall—is just nuts. Obama has already won more Democratic primary contests; within a couple of weeks, he almost certainly will have won more pledged convention delegates and more of the popular vote as well. Only in Camp Clinton does anyone believe that his supporters will be happy if party leaders tell him, in effect, “Nice job, kid, but we can’t give you the nomination because, well, you’re black. White people might not like that.”

Clinton’s sin isn’t racism, it’s arrogance. From the beginning, the Clinton campaign has refused to consider the possibility that Obama’s success was more than a fad. This was supposed to be Clinton’s year, and if Obama was winning primaries, there had to be some reason that had nothing to do with merit. It was because he was black, or because he had better slogans, or because he was a better public speaker, or because he was the media’s darling. This new business about white voters is just the latest story the Clinton campaign is telling itself about the usurper named Obama.

“It’s still early,” Clinton said Wednesday, vowing to fight on. At some level, she seems to believe the nomination is hers. Somebody had better tell her the truth before she burns the house down. 

Has anyone read any particularly good commentary on the "hardworking Americans, white Americans" comment?  I've been slogging through the blogosphere but I haven't seen anything that really gets it right yet.  And are there any good Clinton defenses for this?  I'm shocked that "bitter"-gate got so much play while this is kind of ho hum, politics-as-usual.  Perhaps it's because she's not the presumptive nominee.
We're not accepting this CHANGE UP in the rules. Period. American presidents have been in the bed with organized crime, corporate pilferers, and the like for years. And all u want to put on this man is that his pastor said "Gotdamn America?" Hell, America.U got off pretty damn well, if you ask me...

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #4517 on: May 10, 2008, 09:26:19 PM »
Well, that's pretty long already, and I need coffee, but I hope it offers a bit more background to continue the discussion.

Thanks for the context and commentary, and for being so patient with me, MBW. I think I agree with your perspective, then, that there should be congressional action (and that the Cherokee did give up a little piece of sovereignty with the treaty).  I think cutting off all funding is drastic, but perhaps that's what it takes.  I do wish I could trust these people to respect tribal sovereignty and to meet the needs of the Cherokee more.  I certainly don't like putting weapons in their hands.

I can't believe the Freedmen were not permitted to vote in the membership referendum!  How'd Smith orchestrate that?  Seriously dystopian...

Interesting article, P.  Thanks for posting.

Regarding the Cherokee, I kinda agree with Obama's sovereignty argument.  And for me, the federal funding is simply a concomitant of that: do what you want, but if we don't like it, don't expect any money.  I support this policy w/r/t any "sovereign" that gets our money.

Well, except Obama was saying that because of tribal sovereignty, the federal government should not withhold funding: the decision to disenroll the Freedmen was the Cherokee's to make and the courts would sort out whether it violated any treaty obligations or whathaveyou.  Moreover -- and leaving aside moral arguments about our collective responsibility to support people whose land and culture were violently destroyed to create our nation -- the tribes are not just like any other "sovereign"; for one, they are subject to federal law, including Article I, Sec. 10 limitations of state power and BIA governance of their land.   
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #4518 on: May 10, 2008, 09:27:32 PM »
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080508_a_slap_in_the_face/?ln

A Slap in the Face

Posted on May 8, 2008

By Eugene Robinson

Thanks, blk.  I hadn't seen this in the Post.
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

mbw

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 5038
  • TTTundra Law 2012
    • View Profile
Re: The Thread on Politics
« Reply #4519 on: May 11, 2008, 01:40:16 AM »
Interesting article, P.  Thanks for posting.

Regarding the Cherokee, I kinda agree with Obama's sovereignty argument.  And for me, the federal funding is simply a concomitant of that: do what you want, but if we don't like it, don't expect any money.  I support this policy w/r/t any "sovereign" that gets our money.

Well, except Obama was saying that because of tribal sovereignty, the federal government should not withhold funding: the decision to disenroll the Freedmen was the Cherokee's to make and the courts would sort out whether it violated any treaty obligations or whathaveyou.  Moreover -- and leaving aside moral arguments about our collective responsibility to support people whose land and culture were violently destroyed to create our nation -- the tribes are not just like any other "sovereign"; for one, they are subject to federal law, including Article I, Sec. 10 limitations of state power and BIA governance of their land.   

One of things which bothers me about Obama's recent conversion on this is that his Oklahoma director is Brad Carson, CEO of the CNO's business operations.  The CBC is not attempting to "terminate" the tribe; their amendment addresses funding and the CNO's license to operate their casinos.  There seems to be some conflict of interest going on.  It should be noted that even if the D.C. Circuit rules against the CNO, it will only affect those few tribes governed by the Principle Chiefs Act.  This is not an assault on the sovereignty of all tribes, although, if we in fact allow "the courts" to decide this, it might in fact turn into a nightmare on the order of Oliphant.  Particularly if the case is hear en banc, with Janice "Indian Fighter" Brown on board.
I'm in a lynch mob?  I had no idea.  This is really worrying; I really don't have time for another extra-curricular activity.

space for rent.