Against Tribal Fungibility

IF 2.5 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Cornell Law Review Pub Date : 2004-01-01 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2857480
S. Prakash
{"title":"Against Tribal Fungibility","authors":"S. Prakash","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2857480","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The federal courts maintain that the Constitution grants the federal government a plenary power over all Indian tribes. In response, some Indian law scholars claim that the federal government does not have plenary power over any Indian tribe. Both parties to this dispute fall into the unfortunate trap of treating the Indian tribes as if they are all similarly situated. In fact, there are reasons to believe that the federal government's power over individual Indian tribes varies from tribe to tribe. When an Indian tribe is located on federal property or within a federal territory, the federal government enjoys something like a plenary power by virtue of the Territory/Property Clause. Likewise, some Indian tribes might have ceded to the federal government a plenary power via treaty or agreement. When a tribe does not fit within either of these two categories, the federal government does not have plenary power over it. The misguided tendency to regard the tribes as fungible has obscured the possibility of relevant differences that might yield variable federal power. Once we stop treating the tribes as if they were fungible, we can begin to see more clearly how and why federal authority might vary across tribes.","PeriodicalId":51518,"journal":{"name":"Cornell Law Review","volume":"89 1","pages":"1069"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2004-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cornell Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2857480","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The federal courts maintain that the Constitution grants the federal government a plenary power over all Indian tribes. In response, some Indian law scholars claim that the federal government does not have plenary power over any Indian tribe. Both parties to this dispute fall into the unfortunate trap of treating the Indian tribes as if they are all similarly situated. In fact, there are reasons to believe that the federal government's power over individual Indian tribes varies from tribe to tribe. When an Indian tribe is located on federal property or within a federal territory, the federal government enjoys something like a plenary power by virtue of the Territory/Property Clause. Likewise, some Indian tribes might have ceded to the federal government a plenary power via treaty or agreement. When a tribe does not fit within either of these two categories, the federal government does not have plenary power over it. The misguided tendency to regard the tribes as fungible has obscured the possibility of relevant differences that might yield variable federal power. Once we stop treating the tribes as if they were fungible, we can begin to see more clearly how and why federal authority might vary across tribes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
反对部落可互换性
联邦法院坚持认为,宪法赋予联邦政府对所有印第安部落的全权。对此,一些印第安法律学者声称,联邦政府对任何印第安部落都没有全权。这场争端的双方都陷入了一个不幸的陷阱,即把印第安部落当作处境相似的人来对待。事实上,有理由相信联邦政府对个别印第安部落的权力因部落而异。当一个印第安部落位于联邦财产或联邦领土内时,联邦政府根据领土/财产条款享有某种全权。同样,一些印第安部落也可能通过条约或协议将全部权力让与联邦政府。当一个部落不属于这两个类别中的任何一个时,联邦政府对它没有全权。将部落视为可替代的错误倾向掩盖了相关差异的可能性,这些差异可能会产生不同的联邦权力。一旦我们不再把部落看作是可替代的,我们就可以开始更清楚地看到联邦权力如何以及为什么会在部落之间有所不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Founded in 1915, the Cornell Law Review is a student-run and student-edited journal that strives to publish novel scholarship that will have an immediate and lasting impact on the legal community. The Cornell Law Review publishes six issues annually consisting of articles, essays, book reviews, and student notes.
期刊最新文献
The Health Security Act: coercion and distrust for the market. Laws Intentionally Favoring Mainstream Religions: An Unhelpful Comparison to Race The Role of History in Constitutional Interpretation: A Case Study Making state civil procedure Stricken: the Need for Positive Statutory Law to Prevent Discriminatory Peremptory Strikes of Disabled Jurors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1