![]() |
By David Cornsilk, Posted by John Cornsilk (about the submitter) Page 2 of 2 page(s)
Thus, we have a tribal government, continuing in full force and effect, but restricted according to law. In other words, the 1839 Constitution, which had created the Cherokee Nation was recognized and continued. The 1898 Curtis Act was recognized as controlling and diminishing the sovereign authority of the tribe by abolishing its courts. The citizenship of the Cherokee Nation was "frozen" by Congress when it closed the Dawes Rolls, providing that the individuals born to Dawes enrollees were merely descendants, but not citizens. The only citizens of the Cherokee Nation are those persons listed upon the Dawes Commission Rolls, and their numbers are few, as those yet living would be 100 years old or older.
In 1934, Congress passed the Indian Reorganization Act, but exempted Oklahoma from its provisions. In 1936, Congress corrected itself and passed the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act, which provided for a "new day" by which tribes could reorganize their governments and citizenship any way they wanted. However, they must permit all citizens and their voting age descendants a vote, even if it would remove them from the tribe. To date, the Cherokee Nation has not organized under that act and is not rehabilitated by its provisions. The Cherokee Nation remains disabled by the Curtis Act and only the right to popularly select the principal chief has been restored.
In 1970, Congress passed the Principal Chiefs Act, which provided in just a few words, that the Cherokee people shall have the authority to popularly select their principal chief. This act further provided that the Principal Chief shall "promulgate rules" to carry into effect the election. Nowhere in federal law does it provide for the rehabilitation of the Cherokee Nation by removing the disabilities imposed by the Curtis Act and the 1906 Five Tribes Act, except for holding elections for chief.
In 1975, Principal Chief Ross O. Swimmer brings forth what he describes as a "new constitution" to replace the constitution of 1839. He claims that the "inherent sovereignty" of the Cherokee Nation gave him that right. This contention was false and continues to be false. The inherent sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation was already delegated and could not be diverted for his own use. The Cherokee people had delegated their inherent sovereignty to the Cherokee government by and through the 1839 Constitution. The only way for inherent sovereignty to be used differently would be for the Cherokee people to withdraw their support of the 1839 constitution by and through its provisions for amendment or by a constitutional convention under the terms set by Cherokee law. None of this happened.
1 | 2
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Contact Editor |
| No comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article?
|
||||
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |