Law Commons^™

Governance Within The Navajo Nation: Have Democratic Traditions Taken Hold?, David E. Wilkins

Jepson School of Leadership Studies articles, book chapters and other publications

This essay crafts a description and analysis of the political and institutional context, structures, and issues of the Navajo Nation's government. We begin with a demographic, institutional, and ideological assessment of the nation as its currently stands, move to a historical overview of the nation from precontact times to the 1989 riots and conclude with a short policy portfolio of three issues—land claims, gaming, and taxation—that will likely impact the shape and direction the nation will head into the twenty-first century.

Clinton's Legacy On Indigenous Issues, David E. Wilkins

Jepson School of Leadership Studies articles, book chapters and other publications

The president, of course, has not express constitutional responsibility for Indian nations—that is a power reserved to the Congress under the commerce clause. Nevertheless, it is to the president, dating back to George Washington, who had an active hand in Indian affairs through the treaty process, that tribal nations and their leaders have most often looked to gauge the federal government's character and commitment to fulfill the nation's historic treaty and ongoing trust obligations to indigenous people.

The Reinvigoration Of The Doctrine Of Implied Repeals: A Requiem For Indigenous Treaty Rights, David E. Wilkins

Jepson School of Leadership Studies articles, book chapters and other publications

America's indigenous nations occupy a distinctive political within the United States as separate sovereigns whose rights in the doctrine of inherent tribal sovereignty, affirmed in hundreds of ratified treaties and agreements, acknowledged in the Commerce the U.S. Constitution, and recognized in ample federal legislation case law. Ironically, while indigenous sovereignty is neither ally defined or delimited, it may be restricted or enhanced by One could argue, then, that indeterminacy or inconsistency of the tribal-federal political/legal relationship.

The Indigenous Peoples Of The Usa: Issues And Challenges Of Native Americans, David E. Wilkins

Jepson School of Leadership Studies articles, book chapters and other publications

Vine Deloria, Jr., the most important Indian chronicler of indigenous political, legal, and religious experience in the U.S. in the last thirty years, noted recently that Indian life, particularly the experience of reservation-based tribal peoples, "has only the slightest resemblance to the conditions of three decades ago, and the current situation has elements of hope and portents of disaster." This observation is even more realistic as we sit at the dawn of the new millennium. The 560 indigenous polities in the U.S.—374 Indian nations, tribes, bands, communities, and Pueblos in the lower 48 states; 226 are Alaska Native villages and …

Quit-Claiming The Doctrine Of Discovery: A Treaty-Based Reappraisal, David E. Wilkins

Jepson School of Leadership Studies articles, book chapters and other publications

The discovery doctrine is one of the baseline legal concepts that has worked to seriously disadvantage the land rights of indigenous nations in the United States because it asserts, as one of its definitions, that the "discovering" European nations and their successor states, gained legal title to Indian lands in North America. The author argues, using comparative colonial and early American treaty, legislative, and other historical data, that this definition is a legal fiction. In historical reality, discovery was merely an exclusive and preemptive right that vested in the discovering state the right of first purchase.

Tribal-State Affairs: American States As 'Disclaiming' Sovereigns, David E. Wilkins

Jepson School of Leadership Studies articles, book chapters and other publications

The history of tribal-state political relations has been contentious from the beginning of the republic. As a result of these tensions, the relationship of tribal nations and the federal government was federalized when the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1788. Thus, a number of states, especially in the West, were required in their organic acts and constitutions to forever disclaim jurisdiction over Indian property and persons. This article analyzes these disclaimer clauses, explains the factors that have enabled the states to assume some jurisdictional presence in Indian Country, examines the key issues in which disclaimers continue to carry significant weight, …

"Constructing" Nation Within States: The Quest For Federal Recognition By The Catawba And Lumbee Tribes, Anne Merline Mcculloch, David E. Wilkins

Jepson School of Leadership Studies articles, book chapters and other publications

Creating and in some cases re-creating viable tribal political communities within the construct of modern nation-state has proven to be a troublesome task for indigenous populations worldwide. The task for indigenous governments in the United States has been further complication by federalism's divisions of power between the states and the national government. Native American tribes often find themselves waging a two-front battle in which they must resist state encroachments over their lands and their inherent government authority; while at the same time they must lobby the federal government for protection of those same lands and powers.

History is replete with …

The Cloaking Of Justice: The Supreme Court's Role In The Application Of Western Law To America's Indigenous Peoples, David E. Wilkins

Jepson School of Leadership Studies articles, book chapters and other publications

The debate over which legal Indigenous Peoples should govern Native American political power and property rights, or even whether they should be protected by law at all, caused conflicts challenging the autonomy of the legal system and led to changes of the original principles of Indian rights. The outcome of that conflict raises two questions of federal Indian law. One is where its principles contributed to the survival of Native Americans in the United States; the other is whether the same legal principles are responsible for the perpetual inferiority of Natives Americans in their own land. More starkly, the question …

Who's In Charge Of U.S. Indian Policy?: Congress And The Supreme Court At Loggerheads Over American Indian Religious Freedom, David E. Wilkins

Jepson School of Leadership Studies articles, book chapters and other publications

The federal government's three branches—executive, legislative, judicial, and that unwieldy mass known simply as "the bureaucracy" have, during the last half-decade—1987-1991—produced a dizzying crop of laws, policies, proclamations, regulations, and court decisions which have served simultaneously to 1) reaffirm tribal sovereignty; 2) permit and encourage greater state interference within Indian Country; 3) enhance federal legislative authority over tribes; and 4) deny constitutional free-exercise protections both to individual Indians and to tribes.

On the legislative side, Congress has established the experimental Tribal Self-Governance Demonstration Project which is a major step towards restoring the tribal right of self-determination, and is discussing the …