6:45:28 PM, Thursday, November 17, 2005
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Nevada State Constitution
Sec: 2. Purpose of government; paramount allegiance to United States. All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair[,] subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existance [existence], and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.
I have discovered within the past couple of years that State of Nevada has a problem recognizeing and abiding to treaties, and the U.S. Constitution and the Nevada State Constitution.
I am Tsoo Gus Us Di Au Ga Hi (Georgia L. New (Albert) a Cherokee of Turtle Island, and an information officer of UNOTI (United Nations of Turtle Island http://www.unitednationsofturtleisland.com/) and I travel throughough-out Turtle Island (The No.American Continent) under protection of treaty.
I have discovered that the Municipal Court of Las Vegas Nevada does not recognize treaties. Chief Robert Swift Arrow and I were both told by the court representive that they Do Not recognize treaties entered into by the U.S. Government. The court was informed of my rights as a sovereign Cherokee and my Turtle Island citizenship, but they continue refusing to respect my Right to Free Passage. The court has threatened me and Chief Swift Arrow when in contacted with the court by phone. As a courtesy we have provided copies of my UNOTI wagon registration, citizenship, and license plate, for their records. jWe also sent them copies of the treaties, but they continue to set aside my rights as a sovereign, and harass me with threatening letters. I am not a reservation Indian, I do not recieve funds, nor have I ever recieved funds from any Federal agency that represents some Indians. I am a treaty Indian, who exercises my promised sovereign rights under the articles of Treaty.
The Cherokee are not the only nations that are being threatened in this manner. The Ute/Shoshone here in Nevada are in a court fight about their treaties.
509.1 Breaking the borders: Citizenship questioned by American Indian
tribes feeling like strangers in their own land
By: Paloma Esquivel
Issue date: 11/9/05 Section: Pulp
On July 14, 1928, members of the Indian Defense League of America met
to march across the U.S.-Canadian border. The marchers, made up of
Haudenosaunee, or Iroquois Indians, hoped the event would force the
issue of free passage for all North American Indians across the
Before the Europeans arrived, said the Haudenosaunee, members of the
six nations (the Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, Mohawk and
Tuscarora Nations) traveled freely across the Northeast, without
borders and without restriction.
But today, borders that were imposed by others, including the United
States-Canada border and the borders that outline Indian
reservations, continue to affect the everyday lives of the
Haudenosaunee, said speakers who gathered yesterday as part of the
semester-long "Borders" symposium.
Invited speakers, all members of the Haudenosaunee nations, gathered
in Grant Auditorium with SU students and faculty members. They were
there to discuss how the issue continues to force members of these
nations to accept a premise they did not accept in the first place.
"When we first came together, we had a difficult time with the idea
of land and borders," said Chief Brad Powless of the Onondaga
Nation. "We came with the idea that land was shared."
While most of the world has abandoned this idea, members of the six
nations continue to hold on to it, said Audra Simpson, assistant
professor of anthropology at Cornell University.
"We still see ourselves as caretakers of this land," said
Powless. "That is our duty here, to take care of this land."
In March of this year, the Onondaga nation filed a federal lawsuit
claiming ownership of an area of land that stretches more than 3,000
miles, from Lake Ontario to the Pennsylvania border. The land was
taken in illegal negotiations between individual tribe members and
state representatives, said Powless.
For him and other members of the Onondaga nation, the pollution of
Onondaga Lake is at the heart of the suit.
"The water is dirty; it has been polluted," said Powless. "But water
does not recognize borders. The pollutions affect out community
without regard to the borders."
For Simpson, the issue of imposed borders takes on a new meaning at
the United States-Canada border.
"Every time we cross the border, we are forced to define ourselves,"
Simpson said. "Are we American citizens; Canadian citizens? But we
are not Canadian and we are not American, and they don't get that."
Simpson told the audience when she crossed the border into the United
States a few years ago, a border guard told her she should apply for
a green card.
"I am not an immigrant," she said. "I am a member of a first nation."
"Well, then you are an American," said the guard.
"No, I am a Mohawk," she replied.
For her, and for many others, it is the right to be recognized as a
member of a sovereign nation the Haudenosaunee continue to struggle
Jolene Rickard, an artist and member of the Tuscarora nation whose
grandfather, Chief Clifton Rickard, founded the Indian Defense League
in 1926, spoke about her grandfather's involvement in the League's
first march across the United States-Canada border.
"(At the time) my grandfather and the others with him had the great
courage to continue to be Indian," Rickard said. "He was criticized
for asserting his traditions and demanding the rights of the
Haudenosaunee to cross the border freely."
Despite the criticisms, the march across the border grew in size and
took place every year without fail. But after Sept. 11, 2001, many
doubted that a march that included hundreds of participants crossing
the border without interference could be accomplished, Rickard said.
"I told them, we are supposed to be the people of the dream," she
said. "We believe that if we can imagine it then perhaps it will be
so. That's the goal of this march; we want to be able to move freely.
On that day, for one walk, once a year, we can do that." And so
again, despite its detractors, the march continued after Sept. 11,
and continues to this day.
"To be a Haudenosaunee person today means that nothing has ever been
given to us," said Rickard. "You have to work at it every day."
Press Release for Immediate Release
Land Giveaway Bill Confirms Western Shoshone Predictions
Nov. 4, 2005. Crescent Valley, NV (Newe Sogobia). Confirming Western
Shoshone predictions about massive federal land giveaways, the House
Resources Budget Package was amended last week to include what
Congressman Rahall has dubbed a "blazing fire sale of federal lands to
domestic and international corporate interests". Subtitle B of the
bill lifts the moratorium on privatization or patenting of lands by
mining companies and opens up virtually all federal or "public" lands
a small fraction of its true value. The measure could come to the
floor for a vote as early as next week.
This "liquidation sale" would include the vast majority of lands home
the Western Shoshone Nation - lands formally recognized by the U.S. as
owned and occupied by Western Shoshone under the 1863 Treaty of Ruby
Valley and now the subject of ongoing federal lawsuits and
proceedings. The land area is called Newe Sogobia in Shoshone and
across the states of Nevada, Utah, Idaho and into Death Valley,
California covering approximately 60 million acres of land, 80-90% of
which is claimed as federal or public lands by the United States. The
area is the 2nd largest gold producing area in the world and the U.S.
Geological Service touts it as North America's number one investment
opportunity for the extractive industry. It contains Yucca Mountain,
where the U.S. has been pushing to open a permanent nuclear waste
repository. And importantly, it is also home to one of the most
and well-established Indian land struggles in U.S. history - that of
Western Shoshone. Congressman Richard W. Pombo (R-WA), Chairman of the
House Committee on Resources, defends his legislative measure by
claiming that the sale of public lands will raise money to pay federal
debts and will encourage "sustainable economic development". The
Western Shoshone do not agree and instead stand committed in their
resolve to uphold their land title and protect their lands and waters
from irresponsible corporate exploitation.
Just last year, in the face of Congressional promises of resolving the
long standing land issues in "good faith" by compelling the Shoshone
people to sell their land for 15 cents an acre, the Western Shoshone
National Council and seven of the nine tribal councils opposed
Congressional efforts and predicted that the real beneficiaries of the
"Indian money" would be multinational mining and energy companies
standing to gain billions of dollars by privatization of "public" lands
and expanded resource exploitation. The handwriting was on the wall
even then - while Congress tried to push the one-time payment on the
Shoshone people, the Executive Branch, through the Department of
Interior was destroying the economic livelihood of Western Shoshone by
conducting military-style seizures of Western Shoshone cattle and
horses. The land base was recently announced as the 2nd largest gold
producing area in the world. Some $30 billion dollars in gold has been
extracted from the region to date. In one instance, only months after
removal of horses belonging to Western Shoshone grandmothers Mary and
Carrie Dann, Placer Dome, the world's 5th largest gold company,
announced a doubling of its gold estimate from the same lands where the
horses were seized. Other large gold corporations operating in the
include Barrick, Newmont, and Kennecott. The gold is microscopic and
the mining is open pit, cyanide heap leach mining employing dewatering
of up to 70,000 gallons of water per minute for one mine alone. The
Shoshones' predictions, which some dubbed "conspiracy theories" and
others saw as "synchronized thievery" have now come to fruition with
latest Congressional maneuver to make any and all alleged "public"
part of a liquidation sale to bail the United States out of debt.
"Western Shoshone title is still intact. We have been fighting this
years and will continue to fight. The U.S. thought when they made some
notations in their bookkeeping that the Shoshone would be "paid" and
cloud to land title would be lifted. Well, they were wrong and we're
still here. We've never accepted their money and never will - our
the earth mother is not for sale and we will protect her and continue
our responsibilities as caretakers under the Creator's law." Stated
Raymond Yowell, Chief of the Western Shoshone National Council.
Bob Hager, Attorney for the Western Shoshone added: "What we have here
is an attempt by the United States to swindle the indigenous people,
public and investors. Western Shoshone land title is in litigation in
the federal courts and the subject of a United Nations human rights
inquiry. The U.S.' behavior on this issue has already been found to
violate basic human rights to property, due process and equality under
the law. This latest maneuver only compounds those violations and
in the complicity of the corporations. You can't sell what is not
in the first place and the companies lining up for the dole should keep
that in mind."
ntbudgetrec.pdf (see Subtitle B).
Article URL: http://starbulletin.com/2005/08/14/editorial/special.html |
Â© 1996-2005 The Honolulu Star-Bulletin | www.starbulletin.com
The U.S. Constitution provides
for recognition of native rights
By Patricia Zell
The U.S. Constitution addresses the status of the indigenous, native people of America by stating that Congress has the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."
Patricia Zell recently retired from 25 years of service with the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, where she served as Democratic staff director and chief counsel. She recently contracted with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to perform research related to the Akaka Bill. |
That status is founded not upon considerations of race or ethnicity, but upon the reality that the indigenous, native people occupied and exercised sovereignty over the lands and territories that were later to become part of the United States.
Their sovereignty existed before the formation of the United States, and the Constitution recognizes their status as sovereigns, in the same clause of the Constitution that recognizes the sovereignty of the several states and the foreign nations.
The laws of the United States reflect the constitutional status of the indigenous people of America. Upon this constitutional foundation, hundreds of federal laws have been enacted that express the nature of the political and legal relationship the United States has with the sovereign governments of the native people of this land -- American Indians, Alaskan natives and native Hawaiians.
The Constitution neither requires nor provides that the pre-existing sovereignty of the indigenous people of the United States must be "preserved" through treaties or statehood enabling laws. In fact, the Constitution establishes a legal framework under which the federal government has the principal responsibility of conducting relations with the native people, and many statehood enabling acts expressly disavow any authority over the native people and their lands. The notion that sovereignty requires periodic preservation suggests a serious misunderstanding of the nature of sovereignty.
The Hawaii Admissions Act and the Alaska Statehood Act are unlike many of the other Western states' enabling laws in that both expressly recognize and preserve the rights of the indigenous people of the two states. The Hawaii Admissions Act not only provides for the protection of lands set aside under federal law for native Hawaiians, but further directs that revenues from lands ceded back to the state are to be used for five purposes, one of which is the betterment of the conditions of native Hawaiians. In addition, the Hawaii Constitution explicitly recognizes the rights of native Hawaiians to self-determination and self-governance.
Throughout America's history as a nation, the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government have entered into treaties and carried on a course of dealings with the indigenous people of America, and the judicial branch of the federal government has consistently reaffirmed that the treaties and conduct of relations with the indigenous people is based on a political and legal relationship.
Congressional powers and native peoples
Congress has the constitutional power and authority to address the conditions of the indigenous, native people of America.
Although those who first immigrated to America's shores called the indigenous people they found here "Indians," the terms "Indians" and "Indios" were, for centuries, employed around the world to describe the indigenous people of other countries as well. Upon his arrival in Hawaii in 1778, Captain James Cook recorded in his diaries his discovery of the original inhabitants of Hawaii, referring to the native people as "Indians." In a similar manner, the term "tribe" was the word Europeans assigned to the sovereign nations or groups of America's indigenous people.
While the U.S. Constitution vests the Congress with authority to conduct relations with Indian tribes, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld Congress' exercise of its constitutional authority as applied to the indigenous people of Alaska -- not all of whom are organized as Indian tribes. And since 1910, Congress has enacted more than 160 federal laws that address the conditions of the indigenous people of Hawaii.
The indigenous people of America are not all "Indians," nor are they all organized as "tribes," but they do share the same status under the U.S. Constitution and federal law -- a status that arises out of their inherent sovereignty and the fact that their sovereignty pre-existed the formation of the United States.
As early as the 1830s, Chief Justice John Marshall articulated these principles in the court's rulings. From that time forward, the Supreme Court has continued to sustain the constitutionality of federal laws that are built upon the legal foundation of the political and legal relationships that the United States has had for more than 200 years with the indigenous people who exercised sovereignty in America prior to the establishment of the United States -- American Indians, Alaskan natives and native Hawaiians.
In contemporary times, the Supreme Court's rulings have expressly held that those laws are not based on race or ethnicity, and that Congress has the authority to address the conditions of the indigenous, native people of the United States.
Application of Federal Indian Law in Hawaii
While considered to be part of the body of federal Indian law, the enactment of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971 reflected a significant departure from the federal laws that give expression to the relationships between the United States and American Indian tribal governments. The act authorized the establishment of Alaska native regional and village corporations that would hold title to native lands and in which the native people would be shareholders.
In the ensuing 34 years, the existence of the Alaska native corporations -- and the manner in which they have fostered economic growth in some of the most geographically remote and isolated areas of that state and this country -- have brought the citizens of Alaska together, not divided them, as they share in the economic development opportunities that the native corporations have brought to the rural areas of the state.
In like manner, S.147, the Akaka Bill, does not seek to replicate conditions in Indian country, but rather to reflect the unique circumstances of the indigenous people of Hawaii. S.147 does not, for instance, propose the establishment of "Indian reservations" nor does it suggest that native Hawaiians will want to organize themselves as a "tribe." S.147 does not authorize eligibility for federal Indian programs. While Hawaii is one of two states in the union that criminally prohibits all forms of gaming, S.147 reinforces state law by providing that the principal federal law that authorizes gaming in Indian country will not apply in Hawaii.
And, like the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, rather than adopting the legal framework that informs relations between governments in Indian country, S.147 authorizes a process of negotiations between the United States, the state of Hawaii and the native Hawaiian government to address such matters as civil and criminal jurisdiction, the management of lands and natural resources, and the range of governmental powers and authorities to be exercised by each government.
The suggestion that the United States and the state of Hawaii would readily abdicate their respective sovereignty in deference to the native Hawaiian government in the negotiations process is simply not credible.
In 1934, with the enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act, Congress provided a process for the reorganization of tribal governments in Indian country -- governments that had been discouraged by U.S. policies and laws from exercising their inherent sovereignty. The Supreme Court has repeatedly sustained Congress' exercise of its constitutional authority in enacting the Indian Reorganization Act.
S.147 provides a process for the reorganization of a native Hawaiian government so that the indigenous, native people of Hawaii might give expression to their rights as one group of America's native people to self-determination and self-governance, consistent with U.S. policy of the past 35 years.
Twenty-seven years ago, in 1978, the citizens of Hawaii amended the state Constitution to assure that the federal policy of the rights of America's native people to self-determination and self-governance would be extended to native Hawaiians.
They did so not to establish racial or ethnic divisions but to strengthen the fabric of the multi-cultural society that is Hawaii, by honoring the legacy of the aboriginal, indigenous, native people of Hawaii whose culture, history, language and traditions have, for generations, been so enthusiastically embraced by all of the citizens of Hawaii and serve as the foundation upon which governance in Hawaii is built.
Akaka Bill text
Article URL: http://starbulletin.com/2005/08/14/editorial/special.html
Â© 1996-2005 The Honolulu Star-Bulletin | www.starbulletin.com
The Kauaians have allied themselves with the United Nations of Turtle Island, as many other nations to protect their Rights.
Federation of Sovereign Nations
for the Countries of the Continent of Turtle Island
4535.91 in reply to 4535.90
Many Sovereign Indian people are defecting from the US. They are claiming their birth right.
I am just one of these many sovereign Indians working together to get treaties observed and upheld.
Just as the architect I.M. Pei discussed in the documentary "I.M. Pei", it was not easy for me to give up my U. S. Citizenship, in his cases it was his Chinese Citizenship to become a U.S. citizen. I am comfortable with my choice to join my Native Cherokee family and walk the turquoise trail. I.M. Pei believes that having duel citizenships is not honest, and I agree with him completely.
Alcatraz was just a beginning.