[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.166.490 U.S.163 (1989) (holding that the state could validly impose a severancetax on a non-Indian oil and gas producer whose operations are located on the Indianreservation, even though the same operation is subject to a severance tax by the tribe).167.See, e.g., Dalia Tsuk Mitchell, Architect of Justice: Felix S.Cohen and theFounding of American Legal Pluralism (Cornell University Press, 2007).168.Ibid., 37.169.Ibid.170.Ibid., 38.171.Ibid., 56.172.Ibid., 63 64.173.Ibid., 80.174.Ibid., 84 89.175.Ibid., 94 99. notes to pages 236 240 383176.Ibid., 106 7.The bureaucratic pressure within the Bureau of Indian Affairsfor tribes to swiftly adopt constitutions also facilitated this process.177.Ibid., 110 11.Although much of this resentment has abated over time, itremains alive on some reservations yet today.178.Ibid., 137.179.Ibid., 166 72.180.Ibid.Felix Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law (Michie, 1982 ed.);Newton et al., Felix Cohen s Handbook.I am a contributor to the 2005 edition.181.Ibid., 176.See also Frank Pommersheim, Braid of Feathers: American IndianLaw and Contemporary Tribal Life (University of California Press, 2005), 51 54.182.Felix Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law (University of New MexicoPress, 1942 ed.), 123.183.David Getches and Charles Wilkinson, Cases and Materials on Federal IndianLaw (2d ed., 1986, West), 279.184.Pommersheim, Braid of Feathers, 55 56.See also the proposal set out inchapter 10.185.Ibid., 51 (quoting Felix Cohen).186.Approximately 300 statutes in Indian law have been enacted by Congresssince 1960.187.See 25 U.S.C.§§ 1301 1303 (2000).188.See 25 U.S.C.§§ 1901 1963 (2000).189.See 25 U.S.C.§§ 2701 2721 (2000).190.See 25 U.S.C.§ 1301(2) (2000).191.163 U.S.376 (1896).192.Ibid.at 379.Note that despite the existence of the Major Crimes Act, 28U.S.C.§ 1153, tribal jurisdiction over its members was reserved to the Cherokee nationby the 1835 Treaty of Hopewell.Ibid.at 380.193.Ibid.at 384.194.Ibid.at 382.195.118 U.S.375 (1886).196.187 U.S.553 (1903).197.25 U.S.C.§ 1302 (2000).These guarantees do not negate, but rathercomplement, tribal constitutional or statutory protections where they exist.In addition,those guarantees apply to any person (not just Indians) who is subject to tribalgovernmental authority.198.25 U.S.C.§ 1303 (2000).199.436 U.S.49 (1978).200.Ibid.at 51.201.Ibid.at 52.202.Ibid.at 52 n.2.203.Ibid.at 52 53.204.Ibid.at 53.Note that this case was decided before the exhaustion of tribalcourt remedies rule was formulated in the 1985 case of National Farmer s Union Ins.Co.v.Crow Tribe, 471 U.S.845 (1985).205.Ibid.at 53. 384 notes to pages 240 243206.Ibid.at 54 55.28 U.S.C.§ 1343 (a)(4) (2000) provides:(4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act ofCongress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.207.Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S.at 54.208.Ibid.at 55.209.Thurgood not John; Associate not Chief! See ibid.at 51.210.Ibid.at 60 (citing McClanahan v.Arizona Tax Commission, 411 U.S.164, 172(1973) ).211.Ibid.at 56.212.Ibid.at 56 59.213.Ibid.at 59.214.Ibid.The theory of such lawsuits flow from the case of Ex parte Young, 209U.S.123 (1908), which held that (state) officers did not enjoy the benefits of the state ssovereign immunity when they were acting unconstitutionally.215.Ibid.at 61.216.Id.at 62 (quoting Morton v.Mancari, 417 U.S.535 (1974) ).217.Ibid.at 64.218.Ibid.at 65.219.Ibid.220.This is so at least in the context of affirmative congressional legislation thatestablishes federal standards that may be enforced in federal court in limited circum-stances so as to accord full respect to tribal sovereign immunity.221.Federal review is limited to habeas relief, which is available only when anindividual is detained or restrained by government authority.Most civil rights claimsdo not involve such detention or restraint.222.Getches et al., Cases and Materials, 400 401.Justices O Connor andGinsburg were not on the Court in 1978.223.See generally Judith Resnik, Dependent Sovereigns: Indian Tribes, Statesand the Federal Courts, 56 U.Chi.L.Rev.671 (1989).There is also the critique of thewhite feminist criteria as gender essentialist and racially insensitive.See generallyAngela P.Harris, Race and Essentialism in Feminist Legal Theory, 42 Stan.L.Rev.581 (1990).224.See Bethany R.Berger, Indian Policy and the Imagined Indian Woman, 14 Kan.J.L.& Pub.Pol y 103, 114 (2004) (noting that the movement within the Puebloto change the membership ordinance has not yet succeeded).225.Barbara Ann Atwood, Flashpoints under the Indian Child Welfare Act:Toward a New Understanding of State Court Resistance, 51 Emory L.J.587, 601(2002).226.See ibid.601 5.227.H.R.Rep.No.95 1386, at 9 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N.7530,7531.228.U.S.Senate Rep., 93rd Cong.(2d Sess.1974).1978 U.S.Code Cong
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]