Article goes into detail into what this could look like, most likely a non-voting representative like DC and Puerto Rico have. The only question is whether the white House will play ball on this 200 year old treaty...
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Cherokee Nation asking US to honor 200 year old agreement to give them a representative in Congress.
- Thread starter Inugami
- Start date
Article goes into detail into what this could look like, most likely a non-voting representative like DC and Puerto Rico have. The only question is whether the white House will play ball on this 200 year old treaty...
Trump's made some disparaging comments (Lol I know) about Native Americans for years.
Would be very surprised if this administration accepts.
Would be very surprised if this administration accepts.
OP
OP
It's only non-voting for bills, they'd still be allowed to participate in committees and any votes associated with those.
It would also allow them to present bills to be voted on, at least giving them a small voice in the government. More than they have now.
You know, I wonder if the Herrera v Wyoming decision has a hand in this.
SCOTUS more or less upheld the validity of these old federal treaties and I don't fault the native nations for trying to see them honored.
SCOTUS more or less upheld the validity of these old federal treaties and I don't fault the native nations for trying to see them honored.
Pretty sure Trump will be fine with it considering it has no negative impact on him and the Republicans.
"I've given Native Americans the most representation they've ever had, unlike Pocahontas."
OP
OP
In a year of PR losses, it would be a pretty free win... But you can never underestimate how willing Trump is to be a shit hole for no gain.
Hmm, I agree that tribes are horribly represented in Congress and that the Cherokee Nation probably should have a representative.
On the same hand though I wouldn't want to advantage one tribe over another just based on size. However it seems a bit infeasible to give every functioning tribe a representative to Congress.
Maybe the tribes in a particular state could vote on a number of representatives based on the population of Native Americans in that state?
In any case, I doubt it'll happen but I'm glad they're pushing for greater governmental representation and continue to do that into the next administration, who/whenever that may be.
Edit: Though I agree this is the place to start, given there's a treaty requiring it.
On the same hand though I wouldn't want to advantage one tribe over another just based on size. However it seems a bit infeasible to give every functioning tribe a representative to Congress.
Maybe the tribes in a particular state could vote on a number of representatives based on the population of Native Americans in that state?
In any case, I doubt it'll happen but I'm glad they're pushing for greater governmental representation and continue to do that into the next administration, who/whenever that may be.
Edit: Though I agree this is the place to start, given there's a treaty requiring it.
Last edited:
OP
OP
They'd have to agree to become a state to get Senate representation, and even if they did that would be a much larger hurdle to overcome since that would have to be agreed on by Congress.
Have a democratic candidate make this a real policy and force the Republicans and Trump to respond.
This is a strange criticism. Are the tribes in a conflict I wasn't aware of? Why does this matter at all in terms of representation?
If there is a treaty between the US government and the Cherokee nation, it should be honored.
However, I don't get the push for a Cherokee delegate in addition to their representative(s). Non-voting delegates make sense for US citizens who don't have voting representation. Seems kind of weird for Puerto Rico and DC, who have been in dire need of voting representation for years, to now have citizens of the Cherokee nation get the same delegate as them IN ADDITION to their senators and representatives they already have.
However, I don't get the push for a Cherokee delegate in addition to their representative(s). Non-voting delegates make sense for US citizens who don't have voting representation. Seems kind of weird for Puerto Rico and DC, who have been in dire need of voting representation for years, to now have citizens of the Cherokee nation get the same delegate as them IN ADDITION to their senators and representatives they already have.
Very different situation. Do you think the Cherokee Nation's senate have much of their interest?
While not being able to vote on bills (which is BS), them having a rep in Congress would be great to at least expose issues they need addressed
OP
OP
I'm not sure the Cherokee nation would be up to giving away their sovereign status to get voting rights in the US government.
They're not in conflict but they are separate entities with separate needs for their areas. It's not really critisism either, mostly just me thinking alound.
Representatatives work best on a local scale, and I really don't see how it should be different for tribal representatives. I certainly wouldn't want only the largest tribes in the nation getting represented, because by default that disallows the smaller tribes the same electoral power.
I really want them in there so that every time someone says immigrants should go back were they came from a Cherokee representative can say "You go back where you came from"
