Original Meaning of the Indian Commerce Clause

 Comments Off on Original Meaning of the Indian Commerce Clause
Apr 292010
 

.
Contrary to the belief of those that want control over our children, the Indian Commerce Clause did not give Congress the right to enact a law giving those entities that control.

Professor Rob Natelson, Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Montana, Missoula, researched the issue in 2007. The results of his study were documented in a lead article published in vol 85 page 201 of Denver University Law Review (85 Denv. U. L. Rev. 201 (2007)

According to Professor Natelson, “the U.S. Constitution gives Congress only limited powers, and it says nothing about legislating for “Indian child welfare.”

So what gives Congress the power to pass a law like the ICWA?

Some say the Founding Fathers intended to give Congress that power by a section in the Constitution allowing Congress to “regulate Commerce with the Indian Tribes.” But is that true? Are laws like ICWA really constitutional as regulating “Commerce with the Indian Tribes?”

His answer: Absolutely not.

Professor Rob Natelson is one of the country’s top experts on the original meaning of the Constitution. He concluded that the purpose of the section giving power to Congress to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes was to allow Congress to regulate trade between Indians and whites – no more. Foster care, adoption, parental rights, etc. were be governed by state law, not federal law.

Professor Natelson documented his findings in a lead article published in Denver University Law Review. He also examined other claimed bases for laws like the ICWA, including the “Indian trust doctrine” – and he found they didn’t have any merit, either.

“There is not much doubt on the question,” he said. “At least according the Founding Fathers, Congress had absolutely no authority to adopt the ICWA. Eventually, the courts may see their error and strike it down as unconstitutional.”

This article – and some of Professor Natelson’s other research – can be found at www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm

The Original Meaning of the Indian Commerce Clause – 85 Denv. U. L. Rev. 201 (2007)

The Legal Meaning of “Commerce” In the Commerce Clause – 80 St. John’s L. Rev. 789 (2006)
.

Treaties that don’t Exist

 Comments Off on Treaties that don’t Exist
Jul 062009
 

From http://electriccityweblog.com/?p=4202#more-4202
June 30th, 2009 by Rob Natelson

“Government agencies and pressure groups campaigning for more taxpayer money can create a fictitious “history” almost overnight. First, they make some claim about how something has been recognized since (whenever), and before you know it, journalists are uncritically repeating it, and it is plastered all over the Internet.

“Recently I’ve seen a burst of allegations that the U.S. government assumed a treaty obligation in 1787 to provide reservation Indians with free health care. If you Google “health care treaty Indian 1787,” you will find a long list of sources – including supposedly objective news stories – making that assertion. Here’s a sample from Montana’s Lee newspapers: “A treaty dating to 1787 requires the government to provide tribal members living on reservations with free health care.”

“Now when presented with such a claim, a journalist’s crap-o-meter should start sounding like a fire alarm, because the claim is so inherently improbable. First, the reservation system as we know it didn’t exist in 1787. Second, the cash-strapped Confederation Congress would not have had the resources to meet such a commitment. (Remember that shortage of funds was one reason Congress called the constitutional convention.) Third, a treaty is a bilateral document – even if the Confederation Congress had committed itself to provide health care to the Delaware tribe, for example, it wouldn’t follow that the government had committed itself to provide health care to all Indians for all time.

“So I checked into the claim and found that — sure enough — it is flatly false. Here are some details:
* According to Charles Kappler’s authoritative collection of treaties between the U.S. Government and Native American tribes, there was no such treaty in 1787. In fact, 1787 was a year in which no U.S.-Indian treaties were signed at all!

* There were over 20 U.S.-Indian treaties before 1800, but none obligated the federal government to provide Indians with health care, free or otherwise.

* The last U.S.-Indian treaty was signed in 1868. Some of the later ones provided that the government would pay annuities to some Indians – but often even this term was left discretionary with the government. Neither my own search nor the Kappler index of all treaties disclosed any reference to a treaty obligation to provide free (or any) health care.

We can’t blame the myth wholly on activists and inattentive journalists, however — the U.S. Government bears some responsibility as well. The journalist who authored the story quoted above referred me to a PR webpage from the U.S. Indian Health Service. It states: “The provision of health services to members of federally-recognized tribes grew out of the special government-to-government relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes. This relationship, established in 1787, is based on Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and has been given form and substance by numerous treaties, laws, Supreme Court decisions, and Executive Orders.”

Now, this statement certainly does not say that any treaties created an obligation to provide free health care. But it has problems of its own. It repeats the false 1787 date. And by stating that the Indian-federal “relationship” has been “given form and substance” by . . . treaties,” it implies that treaties created an obligation to provide health care, although they have not.

The website refers to Article I, Section 8, a part of the Constitution that creates congressional powers (not treaty obligations). Clause 3 of that section provides in part that “The Congress shall have Power . . . to regulate Commerce . . . with the Indian tribes.” It is true that Congress claims this “Indian Commerce Clause” gives it plenary authority to regulate Indian affairs. But as I have shown elsewhere, the only authority this provision actually granted to Congress was a power to regulate trade between tribes and non-Indians. It certainly did not confer authority to turn tribes into wards, to meddle in internal tribal affairs, or to put tribal members on the federal dole.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 30th, 2009 at 1:56 pm and is filed under Blogging. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. “

States Not Complying with ICWA – for Good Reason

 Comments Off on States Not Complying with ICWA – for Good Reason
Jun 152009
 

.
The Second Appellate Court in California issued a partially published opinion in Justin L. v. Superior Court, and stated in part;

“We are growing weary of appeals in which the only error is theDepartment’s
failure to comply with ICWA. (See In re I.G. (2005) 133Cal.App.4th 1246,
1254-1255 [14 published opinions in 2002 through 2005, and72 unpublished cases
statewide in 2005 alone reversing in whole or in part fornoncompliance with
ICWA].) Remand for the limited purpose of the ICWAcompliance is all too common.
(Ibid.) ICWA’s requirements are not new. Yetthe prevalence of inadequate notice
remains disturbingly high.”

Perhaps compliance is difficult because the law itself is unjust, and caring people don’t like to see children subjected to not only unjust, but dangerous law.

And under the single criterion that a home be ICWA eligable, kids are continually being placed into horrible situations with the blessing of both the federal and tribal governments.

And not just kids of tribal heritage – but children of every heritage, because a child doesn’t need to be 100% tribal to for a tribe to have jurisdiction over them through ICWA. Most tribes require only 1/4 blood quantum, meaning the child has an even greater heritage somewhere else. Some tribes require even less to claim a child. For example, a child in Texas has less than 2% tribal heritage, but the tribe is trying to claim him.

The law itself is a crime, and as long as it stays that way, there will be difficulty in getting compassionate people to comply.
.

Two more families ask for help

 Comments Off on Two more families ask for help
Jun 082009
 

.
We recieved two more letters this last week asking for help.

One is from an aunt of an enrollable child. The other is a foster / pre-adoptive home. They both need lots of prayer and good legal advice.

I am still having trouble finding time to update our website with letters. I don’t think I’ve updated it in a year. But that doesn’t mean the letters have stopped coming. It just means I’m overwhelmed with the children in my home, and trying to provide for everyone.

The problems with ICWa continue to exist and are hurting children across the country.

I pray for time to update the many letters we’ve recieved.
.

ICWA steals adoption option from Young Mother

 Comments Off on ICWA steals adoption option from Young Mother
May 282009
 

.
My teenager is pregnant. Freshly graduated from high school, she had planned to go on to college in the fall. There is no argument, from her or me, that she made plenty of foolish decisions over the winter. But here we are, and what do we do now.

We love children, and we love this child. We won’t allow it to be hurt in any way. Abortion isn’t even a consideration. It’s not gonna happen.

But neither is adoption an option. The Indian Child Welfare Act would kick in if we tried it. But it would be over my dead body, literally, that I sit back and allow the tribe to have anything to do with the care and custody of my grandchild.

Too many childen on the reservation, under the “care” of tribal governments, are being raised amid poverty, violence, and alcohol, drug & sexual abuse. Tribal leaders claim that this is the best interest of the child. Bull.

The only ones benefiting from this set up are the tribal leaders themselves – and the money and power they have aquired by having a certain number of tribal members under their thumbs.

Quit blaming rotten reservation life on what happened 150 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago, or even 5 days ago to this or that tribe or tribal member. It has to do with adults making rotten choices, same as my daughter (and I) have done. Plain and simple, everyone needs to grow up and take responsiblity for their lousy lives. And quit subjecting innocent children to the garbage they’re being subjected to.

We are faced then with only one choice – my daughter keeps custody and lets go of many the plans she had for the future, or at the very least, greatly adjusts those plans.

I will do all that I can to help her get through some type of schooling and care for her child. If I have to take physical care of my grandchild, I will do it without going to court for legal custody. I’ve seen too many grandparents robbed of their grandchildren by the tribe to want to mess with it.

‘

Another Win Against ICWA

 Comments Off on Another Win Against ICWA
May 152009
 

.
A child and his family won in court at 2 pm Friday May 8, 2009. The child won the right to be adopted by the family his birth parents had chosen. The tribe lost. Praise God.

The child’s grandmother by birth wrote, “Thanks to everyone for all the prayers and support during the past two years. It has been quite the battle and I know this is but one small victory over ICWA. Thanks again.”

This may seem like a small victory to this humble grandmother, but for the child, it is a huge victory. Again, Praise God.
.

ICWA Continues to hurt Famlies

 Comments Off on ICWA Continues to hurt Famlies
Apr 132009
 

.
We get at least three letters a month at http://www.CAICW.org from families that need help. The Indian Child Welfare Act is hurting them and their kids. But we don’t have much for staff at CAICW. It’s a volunteer org made up of busy parents. We care, we pray, we encourage, we tell our stories. We try to connect people that can help each other.

But the Tribes have the money and attorneys. Tribal government leaders want our children to bolster their memberships, bring them more money, and help them to keep their little kingdoms. They don’t really care about what’s good and right for our kids. All our kids are to them is warm bodies that bring federal dollars.

And what would the BIA be if all tribal members left the tribal system? The BIA doesn’t want to lose its purpose – and people that work for the BIA don’t want to lose their government jobs.

Lord Please help us. It’s a tribal industry and our kids are pawns in a game.
.

Campbell Brown, you were RIGHT about Leech Lake. Stay Strong!

 Comments Off on Campbell Brown, you were RIGHT about Leech Lake. Stay Strong!
Dec 202008
 

.
Campbell Brown, please don’t bow to the negative comments you have been recieving. I am the mother of several enrolled children of the Leech Lake Tribe, and what you said was correct!

However, whenever anyone speaks out against the obvious happening on the reservations, they are tore limb from limb. They are bullied to make them shut up, and that is exactly what is happening to you. I know this because it has has happened me and even to my husband, who was a member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe – Leech Lake, born and raised on Leech Lake Reservation. He spoke out because he was tired of watching his friends and relatives die. He knew that it was the reservation system itself that was destructive to them. He took our entire family and moved 1200 miles away and became politically active in an effort to bring change, happiness and hope to the people he loved.

However, getting any word out that is contrary to the image that the tribal government (industry?) chooses to project is very difficult. Although my husband went to Washington DC several times to speak to Congressmen, it was very hard as a small person to combat the lobbying the tribes do. Remember Abramoff?

Senator Burns’ staff, (he was our Senator at the time), told me that the only way he would ever agree to any legislation changing Indian law is if all 500 tribes agreed to it. Never mind what’s constitutional and never mind the civil rights of millions of US citizens. Just please the tribal governments. They pay very well.

And yes, there are many constitutional attorneys and professors that say that much of Indian law is unconstitutional. Please contact me and I can refer you to some.

Look at the last US census and ask yourself why so many enrolled members have moved off the reservation. #1) life is dangerous there. #2) many enrollable people are primarily NON-indian; meaning, their blood quantums are less than 1/2 tribal heritage. They have other lives, other family, and other world views, not always the same as the tribal governents.

However, if they should die, no matter their personal choice, the tribal government has jurisdiction over their children.

Please stay strong in the truth that you spoke! Don’t let them bully you!
.

 Newer Entries