Tags for This Article:

Rights (1325)  Power (1189)  Politicians (951)  Oklahoma (95)  Oklahoma (25)  Mississippi (19)  Cherokee (11)  Cherokee (5)  Cherokee (2) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Add to My Group
April 11, 2008 at 21:31:08

What is sovereignty?

by David Cornsilk (Posted by John Cornsilk)     Page 1 of 2 page(s)

www.opednews.com

 
 
Tell A Friend

View Ratings | Rate It  

 

What is sovereignty?

From time immemorial. How many times have we heard that phrase in relation to the rights of sovereignty exercised by Indian tribes, particularly the Cherokee Nation. But not many people, politicians and lawyers included, really know what that means.

What this confusion boils down to is a lack of knowledge of the origin of sovereignty and an allowance by the people of improper usage and abuse by a rogue government.

The government of a nation is not, in and of itself, sovereign. Sovereignty is a delegation from the people to the government of the right to govern. It is permission, either written or understood, that a government has some right to represent the people in matters of state and foreign affairs.

This is usually accomplished in one of two ways. First, it can be taken from the people, as in the case of dictatorships and other forms of totalitarian regimes. The second is for a valid delegation from the people to a form of government, usually through an election, which then, by consent, exercises sovereignty.

In the absence of a legitimate government, ALL SOVEREIGNTY RESTS WITH THE PEOPLE. As an example, when the Cherokee Nation existed east of the Mississippi River, intact and unmolested by foreign authority, the powers of sovereignty were exercised at various levels by the people or their designated leadership, priests, chiefs and other headmen.

When that form of government became burdensome and unresponsive to the needs of the people, another form of government was organized whereby sovereignty was exercised through a centralized government. But prior to such an event occurring, it was necessary for there to be an interim period where no government existed at all. This was the case during the early 1700's, as the Cherokee people neither wanted, nor understood the concept of centralization.

As the appointed chief, then called an Emperor, became more normalized and acceptable, sovereignty was extended to the position from the people. Prior to that, it was not uncommon for the people to simply ignore the Emperor and his decisions. Sovereignty continued to rest with the people, in spite of what appeared to be an operating central government.

When this form of government became too autocratic and unresponsive to the people's needs, another period of nongovernment took place. During this time, the people met and withdrew the sovereignty they had extended to the Emperor, and re delegated it to an elected Principal Chief. This was accomplished through a constitution passed in 1827.

During those terrible times for the Cherokees, many moved west and organized their own government. They had a primitive government based on a Principal Chief and his assistants. These Cherokees, commonly called Old Settlers, had retained sovereignty within themselves when they left the east and then delegated it to their government upon arrival in the west.

When the Cherokee Nation was forcibly removed from the Eastern homeland, the old government of the Cherokee Nation ceased to exist. All that remained were "leaders." John Ross was no longer Principal Chief and the council no longer had legislative authority. The people followed Ross because of his charismatic leadership, not because they were required to by law.

The sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation, which had been delegated to the government in 1827 through a constitution, was now back in the hands of its rightful owners, the masses of Cherokee refugees. And by the same token, when the larger body of Eastern Cherokee emigrants arrived in the western territory, the
Old Settlers lost their government as well. In the scheme of things, a representative government, elected by a minority, cannot exist in the face of majority opposition In this way, no government existed in the Cherokee Nation west. All of the sovereignty which had been carefully delegated to both governments had unceremoniously reverted to its original owners, the Cherokee people.

Understanding this phenomenon, the leaders of the Cherokee people, both Old Settlers and emigrants, created a new government. This new government was given its credentials through the adoption of the 1839 Constitution. Thus, the restored sovereignty of the Cherokee people was once again delegated to a centralized government which could and would lead the people for nearly a century.

Now, we have a situation where no legitimate government exists for the Cherokee people. One would think that sovereignty, the hallmark of the people's right to govern themselves, has reverted into the hands of its rightful owners, the Cherokee people. This is not the case.

Remembering that in 1839, the Cherokee people delegated the right to govern from themselves to a legitimate government. And that delegation has never been rescinded. The institutions of government have remained vacant for many years. The exercise of sovereignty by any form of legitimate government has been lacking. Meanwhile, a usurper government has arisen.

This usurper government, missing the key ingredients of sovereignty, can do nothing but pretend to govern, which all the while, being supported and succored by foreign governments bent on destroying the Cherokee Nation and oppressing the Cherokee people.

 1  |  2

 

Contact Editor

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
4 comments

SW Texas ultra-liberal
john riggsSW Texas ultra-liberal

Sovereignty is what we aint got

See the video below of Chinese police in the US violating civil rights 

http://www.infowars.com/?p=1440

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 424 comments) on Saturday, April 12, 2008 at 10:21:29 AM
 


I am a retired civil servant. I was an electronics technician.
BarkerI am a retired civil servant. I was an electronics technician.

comparing countries

I have made the commitment to restoring the rights to the earlier people before the European settlers.  I have no children, and plan on having one child and adoption.

 Perhaps the decline in population in the United States is a reflection of restoring rights, people recognize that the people here earlier had their rights taken away.

 When we talk about sovereignty, I am reminded of the UK. When the sailors mutinied on the HMS Bounty, they had no rights, including the right to vote.  I have wondered over the years what would happen if the United Kingdom were to remove authority of the monarchy.  Would the United States withdraw the terms of surrender against Great Britain?

 If the conditions that exist in the UK today existed in 1776, the United States would most likely still be part of the UK. 

by Barker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 117 comments) on Saturday, April 12, 2008 at 9:53:16 PM
 


I am a freelance writer located in New York City.  I am also a Certified Lay Speaker in the Metropolitan District, New York Annual Conference, United Methodist Church.  I am considered a Jewish Christian or Christian Jew, whichever you prefer, having been Bar-Mitzvahed in 1970 into the Tribe of Levi (making me a Levite).  Plus, I'm the son of a Holocaust Survivor.
Kenneth BarrI am a freelance writer located in New York City.  I am also a Certified Lay Speaker in the Metropolitan District, New York Annual Conference, United Methodist Church.  I am considered a Jewish Christian or Christian Jew, whichever you prefer, having been Bar-Mitzvahed in 1970 into the Tribe of Levi (making me a Levite).  Plus, I'm the son of a Holocaust Survivor.

Please explain further

Although the Declararation of Independence refers to King George III by name instead of Parliament, we know now that the Intolerable Acts were enacted at the instigation of the governments of the day and not on the monarch's orders.  Therefore, I don't believe your example stands up to history.  Admittedly, the Crown had more to say in 18th Century Britain about legislation than it does today, but most of the responsibility for hostilities between Westminster and the colonial governments falls to the Tory governments, particularly that of Prime Minister Lord North, who demanded that the colonists pay their own way without any representation in either Commons or Lords (back then the Peers had more legislative say than they do now).  Who is to say that the attitude might have been different with the present players.  Admittedly, Queen Elizabeth II is far more democratic in her outlook than George III, but she is very much a traditionalist at heart.  Would Gordon Brown, whose political "strength" is in economic areas as the only Chancellor of the Exchequer under Tony Blair, react differently when faced with hostiliity from an important economic asset?  Would David Cameron, a Tory, or a Liberal Democrat?  I feel that it is very dangerous to play "historical what if?" as "if" really doesn't exist in historical terms.  If it did, the Titanic would not have sank, the Sarajevo murder would not have been the excuse that set off World War I and HItler would have been successfully challenged long before the outbreak of World War II.  We have to take history "as is" and learn its lessons in real terms.  As a civilization, we have not done a very good job of that.

by Kenneth Barr (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 77 comments) on Sunday, April 13, 2008 at 6:19:36 AM
 


I'm a 29 year old male. 
TyI'm a 29 year old male. 

Sovereignty

There are 3 types of sovereignty.

Individual or personal sovereignty
Popular sovereignty
National sovereignty

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 809 comments) on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 10:02:52 PM
 

 

4 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

Blog Ads

 

 

 

 

Most Popular Articles
in the Last 2 Days
(by Recommend Emails)

Representatives Were Threatened with "Martial Law" if Bailout Bill Did Not Pass by Patrick Henningsen

Tell Karl, John, Dick, and Sarah in a Letter to the Editor that this Ayers Tactic Just Won't Work! by Stephen Fox

Those Who Call Obama A Muslim Posted by Rob Kall

30 Lies Refuted about Ayers and Obama Posted by John Wilson

Albright, Clarke, 200 Diplomats Laud Obama's Willingness to Talk Directly to Adversaries Without Preconditions Posted by Stephen Fox

Palin Debate Performance Deconstructed by Steven Leser

Palin Hates Native Alaskans, Black Folks Too Posted by Hans Bennett

This is Your Nation on White Privilege Posted by Siv O'Neall

All that's missing are the uniforms! Posted by W. Christopher Epler (Bill)

Meet The $700 Billion Bailout Czar by Rob Kall

Go To Top 50 Most Popular