The Cherokee Nation demands that the Treaty of New Echota be honored

[NewYorkExpress]

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Based. Every tribe a representative!

[KaiserDave]

I agree. Although there should be someone method of representing more than one tribe, I am not an expert and can't say for sure.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Speaking of New Echota, I highly recommend visiting it if you're in northwest Georgia; it's just a few miles off I-75 between Atlanta and Chattanooga.  A very interesting place.

https://gastateparks.org/NewEchota

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

Give them a Senate seat while we're at it. Wyoming and Rhode Island both have two.

[Skill and Chance]

Neil Gorsuch likes this.

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

Someone get Gorsuch. He loves making the U.S. actually follow its treaty obligations  even if it has ignored them for over a century.

One potential stick in the mud is the U.S. Government presently recognizes three different Cherokee tribes so presumably the three tribes would have to all agree on the choice, or one would have to be determined to successor to the 1836 tribe, with the rest excluded from the decision.

Its unclear if the "delegate" is supposed to be a voting member or a nonvoting like the current DC and territory (such as Guam) delegates.

I think a voting representative per tribe would be a nice idea, but the House would have to be dramatically expanded for that to be feasible and some other kinks would have to be worked out.

[Benjamin Frank]

Someone get Gorsuch. He loves making the U.S. actually follow its treaty obligations  even if it has ignored them for over a century.

One potential stick in the mud is the U.S. Government presently recognizes three different Cherokee tribes so presumably the three tribes would have to all agree on the choice, or one would have to be determined to successor to the 1836 tribe, with the rest excluded from the decision.

Its unclear if the "delegate" is supposed to be a voting member or a nonvoting like the current DC and territory (such as Guam) delegates.

I think a voting representative per tribe would be a nice idea, but the House would have to be dramatically expanded for that to be feasible and some other kinks would have to be worked out.

Well, he's right on that. The treaty obligations are as valid as the U.S Constitution even if they have been ignored.

[Adam Griffin]

2 Senate seats and 1 House seat for each IMO:

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

2 Senate seats and 1 House seat for each IMO:

The seven adults of this tribe shall rotate positions everyday so each is a member of the House one day a week.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_Band_of_Cahuilla_Indians

[Adam Griffin]

2 Senate seats and 1 House seat for each IMO:

The seven adults of this tribe shall rotate positions everyday so each is a member of the House one day a week.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_Band_of_Cahuilla_Indians

But who shall be in the Senate?


What a great way for the "Noble Reputation of the Institution of the Senate" to die: a situation where we end up with more Senators than members of the House!

[NewYorkExpress]

2 Senate seats and 1 House seat for each IMO:

The seven adults of this tribe shall rotate positions everyday so each is a member of the House one day a week.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_Band_of_Cahuilla_Indians

But who shall be in the Senate?


What a great way for the "Noble Reputation of the Institution of the Senate" to die: a situation where we end up with more Senators than members of the House!

That's how the House of Lords currently looks over in Britain.

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

Someone get Gorsuch. He loves making the U.S. actually follow its treaty obligations  even if it has ignored them for over a century.

One potential stick in the mud is the U.S. Government presently recognizes three different Cherokee tribes so presumably the three tribes would have to all agree on the choice, or one would have to be determined to successor to the 1836 tribe, with the rest excluded from the decision.

Its unclear if the "delegate" is supposed to be a voting member or a nonvoting like the current DC and territory (such as Guam) delegates.

I think a voting representative per tribe would be a nice idea, but the House would have to be dramatically expanded for that to be feasible and some other kinks would have to be worked out.

Granting the Cherokee a voting representative would be a blatant violation of multiple parts of the Constitution, so if this ends up happening it could only be as a non-voting delegate.

[Aurelius]

One person, one vote. Congress should amend the treaty to strike this provision. Come up with some monetary value to compensate and call it settled.

[Donerail]

One potential stick in the mud is the U.S. Government presently recognizes three different Cherokee tribes so presumably the three tribes would have to all agree on the choice, or one would have to be determined to successor to the 1836 tribe, with the rest excluded from the decision.

The Cherokee Nation would, in all likelihood, have the right to choose the delegate, because the Treaty of New Echota is specifically a treaty between the United States and the Cherokee Nation. The other groups of Cherokee can roughly be defined in relation to the treaty: the United Keetoowah Band is made up of Cherokee who migrated to Oklahoma before the treaty was signed (and so were unaffected by it), while the Eastern Band is made up of Cherokee who rejected the treaty and remained in North Carolina. It's not that simple, and they would likely sue or try to negotiate some agreement to at least influence picking the delegate, but it seems like the Cherokee Nation should have the primary claim to the seat.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The crazy thing is that the original 1785 treaty actually predates the constitution, so it was probably referring to the Continental Congress. There's also an 1835 treaty that clearly refers to the US House.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

One person, one vote. Congress should amend the treaty to strike this provision. Come up with some monetary value to compensate and call it settled.

Do you support changing the US senate so that tiny states don't get the same representation as huge states? This is a legitimate question, not just a gotcha.

[Calthrina950]

2 Senate seats and 1 House seat for each IMO:

The seven adults of this tribe shall rotate positions everyday so each is a member of the House one day a week.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_Band_of_Cahuilla_Indians

But who shall be in the Senate?


What a great way for the "Noble Reputation of the Institution of the Senate" to die: a situation where we end up with more Senators than members of the House!

That's how the House of Lords currently looks over in Britain.

The House of Lords is a virtually powerless, ceremonial chamber at this point, however, while the Senate is arguably the most powerful of the two Houses of Congress (due to its power over nominations and treaties).

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Someone get Gorsuch. He loves making the U.S. actually follow its treaty obligations  even if it has ignored them for over a century.

One potential stick in the mud is the U.S. Government presently recognizes three different Cherokee tribes so presumably the three tribes would have to all agree on the choice, or one would have to be determined to successor to the 1836 tribe, with the rest excluded from the decision.

Its unclear if the "delegate" is supposed to be a voting member or a nonvoting like the current DC and territory (such as Guam) delegates.

I think a voting representative per tribe would be a nice idea, but the House would have to be dramatically expanded for that to be feasible and some other kinks would have to be worked out.

Granting the Cherokee a voting representative would be a blatant violation of multiple parts of the Constitution, so if this ends up happening it could only be as a non-voting delegate.

Yeah, lots of people coming up with "based" but comical ways to expand on this, and that would do nothing but torpedo the actual reasonable ask the tribe is making.

Besides, don't Native voters have voting rights for the Senators and Reps in their state/district? I know there are some voting rights issues that need to be resolved in the reservations, of course. But I'm pretty sure there is no statehood movement amid the tribes at the moment.

[Donerail]

I think the argument that there's a "blatant violation" of "multiple parts of the Constitution" is frankly a bit silly. The Treaty at Hopewell, signed in 1785, guaranteed the Cherokee a deputy at Congress whenever they want one. The Founders would have been aware of this treaty, because Andrew Pickens (who owned Hopewell plantation) was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. Despite that, there's no indication that any part of the Constitution was intended to forbid this arrangement; it was, in fact, commonplace enough that they reaffirmed it in the Treaty of New Echota a few decades later.

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

I think the argument that there's a "blatant violation" of "multiple parts of the Constitution" is frankly a bit silly. The Treaty at Hopewell, signed in 1785, guaranteed the Cherokee a deputy at Congress whenever they want one. The Founders would have been aware of this treaty, because Andrew Pickens (who owned Hopewell plantation) was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. Despite that, there's no indication that any part of the Constitution was intended to forbid this arrangement; it was, in fact, commonplace enough that they reaffirmed it in the Treaty of New Echota a few decades later.

The Constitution clearly states that representatives are to be apportioned by state according to their populations. The Cherokee tribe is not a state. The Supreme Court has ruled several times that representation in Congress is to be determined by the “one man, one vote” principle. Giving the members of the Cherokee tribe twice as much representation as everyone else is a blatant violation of that principle.

I don’t really care what the founders views were, I care what the authors of the Constitution and its amendments actually wrote down.

[Donerail]

I think the argument that there's a "blatant violation" of "multiple parts of the Constitution" is frankly a bit silly. The Treaty at Hopewell, signed in 1785, guaranteed the Cherokee a deputy at Congress whenever they want one. The Founders would have been aware of this treaty, because Andrew Pickens (who owned Hopewell plantation) was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. Despite that, there's no indication that any part of the Constitution was intended to forbid this arrangement; it was, in fact, commonplace enough that they reaffirmed it in the Treaty of New Echota a few decades later.

The Constitution clearly states that representatives are to be apportioned by state according to their populations. The Cherokee tribe is not a state.

That sort of logic would invalidate the non-voting delegates for all of the territories (which are, of course, not states). Apportionment has never been read to forbid non-voting delegates.

The Supreme Court has ruled several times that representation in Congress is to be determined by the “one man, one vote” principle. Giving the members of the Cherokee tribe twice as much representation as everyone else is a blatant violation of that principle.

The logic of "one man one vote" is rooted in Equal Protection, and it is well established that you don't apply normal equal protection logic to Indians. Giving the Cherokee a delegate is related to Congress's unique obligations to the Indians, which is all that's necessary to satisfy equal protection.