What is the 70's Chief Act?

5. The U.S. Congress passed the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) in 1934 to restore Indian governments and provide for self-governance. However, the act specifically excluded the tribes in Oklahoma.

6. The U.S. Congress passed the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act (OIWA) in 1936 to restore self-governance to Indian tribes in Oklahoma. This Act provided for the reorganization of tribal governments and repealed any disability Congress had imposed from past legislation, but only for tribes who reorganized under the authority of the OIWA.

Analysis: It was the intent of Congress to right an historic wrong it had committed against the natives of the this country. In so doing, it provided a mechanism by which tribes might be restored to their sovereignty and self-governance. Any tribe could reorganize and four of the Five Civilized Tribes have done so. The only tribe not taking advantage of the provisions of the OIWA is the Cherokee Nation.

8. The United Keetoowah Band is a federally recognized local government governing under a charter obtained through the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act.

Analysis: Nothing in the recognition of either the tribal towns or the United Keetowah Band of Cherokee (UKB) affects or hinders the rights of individuals as citizens of their respective larger nations. In other words, UKB is an inseparable parts of the Cherokee
Nation (notice I did not say CNO). And the Creek Tribal Towns are inseparable parts of the Creek Nation. This is so, even if they prohibit their members from 'enrolling' in the greater part of the whole nation. It is the policy of  the BIA and infettered by Congress, that the United States, through the BIA, may develop government to government relationships with local governments within a greater tribe. The Creek Nation has provided in law that the government to government relationship between the Creek Nation and the Tribal Towns is approved. The adversarial relationship developed between the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and the UKB does not change the relationship of the individual citizens to each other. The Earl Boyd Pierce letter and the actual participation of the UKB in Cherokee Nation affairs prior to 1976, all point to the fact that the UKB and the Cherokee Nation are connected.

Since the creation of the CNO in 1976, the Cherokee Nation itself has remained silent regarding it relationship with the UKB or through its sole embodiment in the office of the Principal Chief has furthered the antagony.

9. The Creek Nation is a federally recognized government governing under a charter obtained thorough the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act.
 

10. The Cherokee Nation is not a federally recognized government because it has not reorganized under the authority of the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act.  The CNO is recognized by the BIA for the purpose of social services delivery.  Any further recognition of the CNO as a sovereign entity is at risk of being overturned in the federal courts.
 

A group of Cherokees, headed by then Principal Chief Ross O. Swimmer, developed what they called a "constitution" in 1976. Without authorization in the 1970 Five Tribes Act and definitely not under the authority of the 1839 Constitution, Swimmer did one of two things:

a. He created an illegal institution known as the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (CNO) or,
b. The CNO is nothing more than promulgated 'rules' to carry out the popular selection of the principal officer of the Cherokee Nation as provided for in the Act and its actions as a sovereign polity are an illegitimate usurping of the authority of the silent Cherokee Nation.

Either way, the 1976 Constitution, in spite of its language to the contrary, could not superseded the 1839 Constitution, as there was no law which provided for it. This means that the Cherokee Nation, as it existed in law between 1906 and 1976, continued unfettered except by limitation imposed by the Curtis Act and the 1970 FTA. After 1976, the Cherokee Nation became the silent twin of the CNO (man in the iron mask). While the sole embodiment of the Cherokee Nation reposes in the office of the Principal Chief, he is aided in his work by a corporation he created which goes by the name Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. We know this is so because of the Court case of Harjo v. Kleppe in which the Creek citizens demanded reorganization of their government. The Harjo Court found that because of the limitation of the Curtis Act, 1906 and 1970 Five Tribes Act, the sole embodiment of the
Creek Nation rested in the office of the Principal Chief. The so-called constitution created by then Creek Chief Claude Cox did not and could not replace the original Creek Constitution of 1867 and was, therefore a nullity.  The situation of the Cherokee Nation is the same. Nothing has occurred in the law which removes the disabilities imposed upon the Cherokee Nation by the Curtis Act.
 

The rights of the Creek Nation were restored in 1979 when that tribe reorganized under the authority of the OIWA and all  disabilities imposed upon it by the Curtis Act of 1898 were superseded. This fact is spelled out in detail in the federal court case of Creek Nation vs. Hodel in which the Court ruled that the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act had repealed the destructive effect of the Curtis Act for those tribe organized under it. The Creek Nation is organized under the OIWA, the Cherokee Nation is not. The Cherokee Nation, as yet unorganized, remains under the disabling cloud of the Curtis Act which dismantled its legislature, took away the authority of its tribal courts and made Cherokee law unenforceable.

11. The Five Tribes Act of 1970 provided for the "popular selection" of  the principal officers of the Five Civilized Tribes. Previous to that time, the principal officers were appointed by the president. Four of the Five tribes, Cherokees, Creeks, Chickasaws and Choctaws moved quickly to hold elections.

The Seminoles had continued to popularly elect their principal officers after 1906 despite the language of the 1906 Five Tribes Act delegating the appointment to the U.S. president. While the BIA refused to recognize their elections, they worked with the elected chief so long as he did what they wanted. When he refused, they simply appointed someone to do their bidding.

 1  |  2  |  3