Peter D'Errico, a respected Native American law attorney, comments on the theory behind Federal Indian Law

This is an interesting take on Federal Indian Law - how the basic premise behind ALL of it is flawed.  Here's a sample:

"Indian country needs to strip away the “pretense of conquest” and reveal the underlying reality of federal Indian law: a system designed to suppress sovereignty of Indian nations in keeping with a tradition of Papal Bulls and Christian political theology. Indian country needs lawyers not afraid to argue for indigenous sovereignty and against the “pretense of conquest through discovery.”

Echohawk demonstrated that NARF is not one of the challengers of pretense when he continued, “the federal government has exclusive authority over all Indians, all tribes under the Constitution, basically, that takes care of everything – if you’re a tribe then you’re under federal jurisdiction, any tribe, anywhere, is under federal jurisdiction. Period.”

The culture of acceptance of the pretense of federal Indian law prevails not only at NARF, but also in law schools, even in Indian law programs. The standard approach seems to be to train young lawyers to accept the existing paradigm, rather than question it. The standard approach produces arguments acceptable to judges like Scalia, rather than challenge the discriminatory basis of federal Indian law."

We're doubtful that anyone is going to get the US Supreme Court to overturn a couple of centuries worth of Indian law cases......but the whole notion is worthy of discussion and consideration (and stranger things have happened - see Brown v. Board of Education).

See the full editorial HERE on Indian Country Today.

twp