Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Raptorpat last won the day on December 20 2019

Raptorpat had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5746 Excellent


About Raptorpat

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

3185 profile views
  1. i tentatively think i have met 8 boards ppl in-person
  2. The "Indian Territories" dissolved, not the individual tribes within it. Regardless, the decision repeatedly speaks to acts of congress in recognition of the tribe and other issues after that date. What are the consequences the State and dissent worry might follow from an adverse ruling anyway? Primarily, they argue that recognizing the continued existence of the Creek Reservation could unsettle an untold number of con- victions and frustrate the State’s ability to prosecute crimes in the future. But the MCA applies only to certain crimes committed in Indian country by Indian defendants. A neighboring statute provides that federal law applies to a broader range of crimes by or against Indians in Indian country. See 18 U. S. C. §1152. States are otherwise free to apply their criminal laws in cases of non-Indian victims and defendants, including within Indian country. See McBratney, 104 U. S., at 624. And Oklahoma tells us that somewhere between 10% and 15% of its citizens identify as Native American. Given all this, even Oklahoma admits that the vast majority of its prosecutions will be unaffected whatever we decide today.
  3. The Creek tribe didn't dissolve, the Indian Territory/proposed State of Sequoia dissolved.
  4. It very specifically has to be a reservation created by congress that was swept under the rug by someone other than congress. Also correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think reservation residents are excluded from congressional representation.
  5. Has anyone seen any maps of what this actually includes presently? I did a quick search and all the first results were old maps.
  6. Raptorpat


  7. The question would then be how or whether the US broke the treaty, given it requires Congress to do it.
  8. This is basically the summary of the result. I don't know enough about federal indian law to comment as to whether "congress must explicitly screw tribes in order to screw tribes" is an actual legal landmark. I suppose it depends on whether other reservations went through similar "unofficial" dissolutions. If not, it's just a pretty big one-off.
  • Create New...