Facebook Twitter Email
FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 2003

"Some tribal leaders do not perceive the power in a resolution or declaration of rights. Many lawyers who represent tribes do not fully understand this power either and are under the mistaken belief that tribal authorities derive from grants from the federal government, rather than arise from the inherent sovereign powers of Indian nations.

In the 1970s, it was the view of most lawyers representing tribes - most of whom were not Indian at that time - that tribal sovereignty was derivative.

The law firm that represented the National Congress of American Indians and a number of Indian tribes had been the main advocate on Capitol Hill for the law that conveyed civil and criminal jurisdiction over tribes and Indians to certain states. One of its top attorneys had insisted in the mid-1970s that NCAI keep all Indian lawyers off its National Indian Litigation Committee, saying that Indians were not yet capable or experienced lawyers.

One of the main panels at the NCAI’s annual convention in 1973 was entitled: "Sovereignty: Granted or Assumed?" A lawyer took the position that it was granted by Congress. A tribal chairman said it had to be assumed (as in, taken) from the federal government. One tribal leader in the audience said that sovereignty was inherent, but only a few people applauded; others whispered that he was "radical.""

Get the Story:
Harjo: Indian laws and Tribal lawmakers (Indian Country Today 6/13)