This week in woke idiocy: Indians don't need floatation devices because of "eons of experience" ...

[Bomb#20]

Whether something is a "vile statement" is a matter of judgment which may differ among people.

Yes, much as in some people's judgment calling someone a "silly English kniggit" is a vile anti-black racial slur.

 

[Bomb#20]

Public official: The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply to your race.
Member of indicated race: The hell it doesn't.
"Woke": That's so racially passive-aggressive.

 

[Politesse]

Public official: The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply to your race.
Member of indicated race: The hell it doesn't.
"Woke": That's so racially passive-aggressive.

Who said anything about the fourteenth amendment not applying to anyone? We have an obligation to guarantee equal rights under the law, very much because of the fourteenth amendment. Which means that if a law has been passed by the Congress, such as for instance the laws that created the Washington reservations, or for that matter the longstanding law that gives Reservation communities plenary rights over their own law and court system, then we all have an equal responsiblity to uphold that law. Please note that the proposed legislation actually says nothing about race, only membership in a tribe. If you are angry about what the law says, we all also have an equal right, and a legal process, by which to have that law changed. But you cannot simply ignore the law as written on the basis of thinking it isn't fair to you personally. If that's the only way to challenge a law, there is no law. You want to change the law? The place to start is by writing your state senator.

Your idea of fairness is skewed in any case, as your senator would swiftly discover if they tried to pursue such a change. If the city you live under the jurisdiction were to seize your house under eminent domain, they would be obliged to fairly compensate you, because that is what the law requires, fair compensation of any individual whose property has thus been seized. Your neighbor, whose house has not been seized, does not get to claim equal rights to compensation just because you did. Their house is still their own, so no compensation is due them under the law. If in fact their house were to be likewise seized, they would have the exact same right to compensation that you do. That is what the Fourteenth Amendment absolutely guarantees. Likewise, when the goverment seized Indian lands, under their own law that required them to guarantee certain stipulations in return, among them free exercise of economic activities. You aren't owed anything, because your ancestors whose property and monetary rights you have inherited under the law, were the beneficiaries rather than the targets of these supposedly legal seizures.

Interestingly, the treaty system was designed to undermine this system, not enforce it. What do you think would happen if all of the Indian nations were to suddenly agree that they should have exactly equal rights as any American citizen... and thus demanded to be recompensed for their loss of lands in exactly the same way value is estimated during an eminent domain seizure? Water rights, mineral rights, everything? The US treasury would be emptied overnight. The conceit of having separately negotiated these exchanges under the guise of an international treaty with a separate but equal polity is the only thing protecting us from the immediate reconstitution of every single thing our country has stolen. On the basis of our own laws, not anyone else's. Conservatives hate the idea of recognizing treaty rights, but that's because they are fucking morons who don't realize that those treaties were always designed to favor our country, and that our legal situation would become much less clear and solvent were we to openly admit that those treaties were never valid.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If the Catholics wish to be called "Christians", that's fine, too. I'm happy to do so. They don't get to decide what anyone else is or isn't called, nor is anyone's autonym a "definition" of anything.

The question was whether you would use the word 'Christian' to mean "evangelical fundamentalist Protestant". If you do, then if you call the Catholics 'Christians', you make a false statement, and the Evangelicals will quickly seize on that. But I would rather leave this aside, because you may have misunderstood B20's question and my follow-up questions.

If I call you Angra Mainyu, am I making an ontological claim that you and only you can be defined as an Angra Mainyu and anyone else who tries to call themselves that is a liar? Of course not. I'm just calling you as you prefer to be called, as any sane, adult, non-asshole would do.

Words have meanings, but there are different types of words. Suppose, for example, that A tells B that A wants to be referred to as 'Alex'. By saying 'A is Alex', B would be identifying A, but 'Alex' has no further meaning. Imagine, instead, that A tells B that A wants to be referred to as an Italian-American. By saying 'A is an Italian American', B would be ascribing a property to A (which is a bundle of simpler properties, but let us simplify notation). As it happens, B might reckon on the basis of the available information that A is not an Italian-American, and might not be inclined to lie. Still, B might choose to lie to avoid a confrontation or because she might reckon the lie is harmless. But there are cases in which B might reckon the lie would have negative consequences, would help others do injustices, etc.

I note that it's almost exclusively outsiders who demand to call Natives by homogenous collective racial terms in the first place.

Actually, that almost never happens. People who use a label like 'Indian' to talk about the Dakota, Lakota, Apache, Comanche, Cherokee, Cheyenne, etc., do not generally demand that others use the label 'Indian', and have no opposition to others using the specific labels.

No one is making a claim about what defines them; when given actual freedom of self definition, most people (of any background) prefer to be named primarily as members of their claimed culture or nation, not their assigned race, and Native folks are no different on that point.

Native folks are people born in the US. A subset of the population decided to use capitalized 'Native American' to name some tribes. But it has negative consequences, because of the previous meaning of 'native' in English, so that causes at best confusion. Other people have chosen not to use that label, and in their version of English, 'native American' does not mean that. It's a labeling issue, but also a meaning issue, because the use of the term 'Native American' gives the impression and is used to suggest they have a right to the territory that others do not.

Let me ask you, when someone asks you what you are or where you're from, do you answer "a White"? Why or why not?

If they ask me where I am from, obviously not, since it would be like answering 'a person with brown hair' to the question 'how tall are you?'. It is just an unrelated answer.
If they ask me what I am, I would look at context. Almost certainly, that question is about what I do for a living or some other question unrelated to color, and answering 'a White' would be again like answering 'a person with brown hair' to the question 'how tall are you?'.
If context clearly indicates that the question means 'what color are you?' (so, obviously they cannot see me, it's almost certainly a thread), my answer would be 'white', (or 'White', depending on whether in that thread people generally capitalize color words when talking about people, though I would have to take a look at the reasons for that usage if I had time, before I choose whether to capitalize). And yes, it's true: I am white.

If it's a question of race, I would probably go with 'Caucasoid', or 'White' if the latter is in use, though it's less accurate and can lead to confusion, so I would look at context before I answer to prevent that sort of thing.

Is it literally true? Is it an ontological claim about objectively true facts?

Yes, it is, though which claim it is varies in context. Sometimes, it's about race; others about color, and one has to assess the matter in context. But of course, it is a claim that can be true or false. Remember, people speak in ordinary English. If I were to say, for example, and speaking ordinary English, that I am a black man, I would be lying. That would be a false claim, and I am aware of the fact that it would be false. Rachel Dolezal lied, unless she is too far gone, but at any rate, she made a false claim.

Or is it just a label, and not even really your preferred label?

No, it is not just a label. 'Alex' would be just a label. 'Angra Mainyu' is just a label. 'I am white' would not just be a label. It might or might not be also a label, but it is a claim about me. It is true. On the other hand, 'I am black' would be a false claim about me; 'I am Italian American' would be a false claim about me, even though iirc 6 out of my 16 great-great-grandparents were Italian. Why? Well, because I am not American! If I were, I'm not entirely sure whether 6 out of 16 would qualify; I think probably so. On the other hand, if I said 'I am a Korean American', that would be certainly false even if I were somehow granted American citizenship.

I certainly don't care to be called a white, but I understand that questions of law and sociology (or government forms) will sometimes require it.

Well, yes, for example, sometimes white people are not eligible for some benefits. A white person who says he is black, or Han Chinese, or whatever but not white in order to get them is lying.

In such cases, I certainly prefer "White" to "Caucasian" or "Aryan" or "Cracker" even though none of those terms have any factual basis whatsoever.

I do not know 'Cracker' (I am not familiar with that word), but 'Caucasian' would be true; 'Aryan' has different meanings if I'm not mistaken, but it would be false in my case in any of them: I am not Aryan.

Because race as a concept is bullshit, and the labels it generates have a lot of history but not much logic behind them as a rule.

B20 already showed repeatedly, in replies to you even, that races are real, and in particular that there are Caucasoids - ('Caucasians' would work as well, since it means the same). But in any case, even if 'I am a Caucasoid' were not true, 'I am white' would be true, and 'I am black' would be false. This really is obvious; it is common sense.

Furthermore, if you were correct and there were no Caucasoids, then 'I am a Caucasoid' would be false; it would not be just a label. The meaning of the words does not change merely because they fail to refer! When people say someone is a Caucasoid, they are in fact making a claim about them. If no such thing as Caucasoids existed, again that would be a false claim. So, even granting for the sake of the argument your (false) claim that there are no races, the fact remains that 'Caucasoid' is not merely a label. Words do have meaning, and meaning is given by usage amongst a linguistic community.

 

[Politesse]

The question was whether you would use the word 'Christian' to mean "evangelical fundamentalist Protestant".

Then that's a stupid question. No, I wouldn't.

As for defenses of racism and associated bullshit, I'm not interested.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't think it is necessary to be hung up on race. In fact, this seems to be started by opposition to the bill framing it as reverse racialist. The bill has exemptions for "federally recognized tribes" which are legal entities having tribal sovereignty. The extent of being able to manage themselves is supposed to be respected in some domains and it goes to waterways in part in Washington state. In context of this thread which started discussing "Indians" and then others posting "Native Americans" or "indigenous," this is a short-hand for discussion of federally recognized tribes, but there is a distinction. To reiterate, the bill doesn't require a genetic test--you can't take an Ancestry test and say, "look at this dna test result, I'm 99% Native American and so I am exempt"--nor did the bill creators claim that genetics makes one impervious to drowning--but one could show a card with federally recognized tribe in order to get administrative fees or whatever dismissed--that's what the bill actually would implement. Tucker Carlson, the talk radio host, and others created a reverse racialism narrative and the thread op post is a form of poisoning the well.

Further, it boggles the mind that people in this thread want to treat treaties as fantasies by minimizing them, making weird analogies to magic. I suppose it is difficult to imagine things that exist for centuries beyond a single human generation, having legal or moral weight, especially if it is something that your own government is unwilling to recognize or enforce--but tribes as a legal entity have existed for centuries and the US government has also existed for centuries and treaties between those entities are sometimes ruled on in court after tribal members have been quite abused by the various systems and people. Yes, it is true that the treaties are often stacked against the tribes, like "I'm giving up my right to land, but I retain this right...." or "My lands only are here" and further the things get ruled on by one side of the treaty (i.e. can go up to the US Supreme Court which has a conflict of interest being part of the US govt). Still...occasionally, the lands, waters, and tribal rights are ruled on positively by a court.

Here is some information on one such ruling that has at least some relevance to the topic since it involves fishing in Washington state by tribal members:

On February 12, 1974, Federal Judge George Boldt (1903-1984) issues an historic ruling reaffirming the rights of Washington's Indian tribes to fish in accustomed places. ...

Western Washington tribes had been assured the right to fish at "usual and accustomed grounds and stations" by Federal treaties signed in 1854 and 1855, but during the next 50 years Euro-American immigrants -- armed with larger boats, modern technology, and the regulatory muscle of the state -- gradually displaced them. ...

Local tribes sued to block state regulation, but the U.S. Supreme Court issued an ambiguous decision in 1968 that left the issue unresolved. In 1970, the Nixon administration's U.S. Attorney for Western Washington, Stan Pitkin, filed a new complaint against the state of Washington, which was defended by Attorney General (future U.S. Senator) Slade Gorton. Commercial and sport fishing groups submitted friend-of-the-court briefs opposing treaty fishing rights. ...

Judge Boldt finally held that the government's promise to secure the fisheries for the tribes was central to the treaty-making process and that the tribes had an original right to the fish, which they extended to white settlers. It was not up to the state to tell the tribes how to manage something that had always belonged to them. ...

Emphasis added.

 

[TomC]

Emphasis added

Cue nitpickery concerning the bolded word "always".
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

The question was whether you would use the word 'Christian' to mean "evangelical fundamentalist Protestant".

Then that's a stupid question. No, I wouldn't.

As for defenses of racism and associated <expletive deleted>, I'm not interested.

That's libelous. Angra Mainyu did not offer a defense of racism. You insinuated that he did, even though you know perfectly well that what he wrote was not a defense of racism. You should be ashamed of yourself.

It has become popular in the circles of a certain new religion to claim that it's racist to dispute the religion's biologically baseless article of faith that races don't exist; but that claim is itself based on one of that religion's own idiosyncratic made-up definitions of "racism", a definition which the members of the religion are well aware is not what the word "racism" means among English-speakers in general. When members of the religion accuse outsiders of "racism" on those grounds without explicitly clarifying that they don't mean "racism" in the conventional sense, they are repeating a lie.

 

[Bomb#20]

Public official: The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply to your race.
Member of indicated race: The hell it doesn't.
"Woke": That's so racially passive-aggressive.

Who said anything about the fourteenth amendment not applying to anyone?

Cindy Ryu.

We have an obligation to guarantee equal rights under the law, very much because of the fourteenth amendment. Which means that if a law has been passed by the Congress, such as for instance the laws that created the Washington reservations, or for that matter the longstanding law that gives Reservation communities plenary rights over their own law and court system, then we all have an equal responsiblity to uphold that law.

And all that would be perfectly relevant in some alternate reality where Ms. Ryu's bill had an exemption for waters within Reservations, instead of an exemption for tribal members.

Please note that the proposed legislation actually says nothing about race, only membership in a tribe.

Please note that the Fourteenth Amendment actually says nothing about race. If a law passed by Congress set the national speed limit at 55 mph, or 65 mph for any person who could prove descent from a passenger or crewmember of the Mayflower, that would be a Fourteenth Amendment violation too.

If you are angry about what the law says,

If I got angry every time an idiot legislator introduced an obviously unconstitutional bill I'd give myself a heart attack.

But you cannot simply ignore the law as written on the basis of thinking it isn't fair to you personally.

Apparently it's a-okay for Cindy Ryu to simply ignore the law as written on the basis of thinking it isn't fair to Native Americans collectively. Of course a lot of people seem to think that the Constitution being the highest law of the land means it doesn't really count as an actual law -- so if some statute conflicts with it, that's something ordinary people can't tell by reading it in the way they can tell whether their own actions conflict with a statute by reading it. So instead we're all supposed to just obey the "lower" law and disregard the "higher" law right up until the SCOTUS gets around to reading the Constitution for us. It's a lot like the way the Church used to say they were the representatives of Jesus on earth and what that meant was that the people had to take the Church's word for what Jesus said and don't you dare read for yourself what Jesus said and Thou Shalt Not Translate the Bible out of Latin.

If that's the only way to challenge a law, there is no law. You want to change the law? The place to start is by writing your state senator.

Your idea of fairness is skewed in any case, as your senator would swiftly discover if they tried to pursue such a change.

Your and my senator is past discovering anything since she clearly has dementia. You seem to have mistaken me for a Washingtonian. And I haven't offered an opinion on whether Ryu's discriminatory law is fair -- what I pointed out the unfairness of was the unfairness of calling a guy racially passive aggressive for complaining when somebody aggressed against his race. There used to be a saying that your right to swing your fist ends at another's nose; nowadays it seems a lot of people feel your right to your nose ends at somebody else's fist.

Likewise, when the goverment seized Indian lands, under their own law that required them to guarantee certain stipulations in return, among them free exercise of economic activities.

Feel free to exhibit a treaty that says free exercise of economic activities trumps state law even when they aren't on a reservation.

You aren't owed anything, because your ancestors whose property and monetary rights you have inherited under the law, were the beneficiaries rather than the targets of these supposedly legal seizures.

You assume facts not in evidence. I have never inherited property or monetary rights from my ancestors. I may be an old guy, but as it happens my parents are still alive.

Interestingly, the treaty system was designed to undermine this system, not enforce it. What do you think would happen if all of the Indian nations were to suddenly agree that they should have exactly equal rights as any American citizen... and thus demanded to be recompensed for their loss of lands in exactly the same way value is estimated during an eminent domain seizure?

The obvious: they'd lose. But then that's the same thing that would happen if all the Brooklyn Dodgers fans were to suddenly agree to demand recompense for their loss of the Dodgers to L.A. To get compensation you have to prove you were the legal owner.

Water rights, mineral rights, everything? The US treasury would be emptied overnight.

You have a vivid imagination.

Conservatives hate the idea of recognizing treaty rights, but that's because they are ... morons who don't realize that those treaties were always designed to favor our country, and that our legal situation would become much less clear and solvent were we to openly admit that those treaties were never valid.

I'm unconvinced that you're competent to report what conservatives hate; and I'm unconvinced that their opinion is relevant to a discussion here since I don't see any conservatives.

 

[Politesse]

Please note that the Fourteenth Amendment actually says nothing about race. If a law passed by Congress set the national speed limit at 55 mph, or 65 mph for any person who could prove descent from a passenger or crewmember of the Mayflower, that would be a Fourteenth Amendment violation too.

Unless an act of Congress had passed some law that created such a category and defined standards to determine who did or did not belong in it, and the Supreme Court deemed that law Constitutional.

Public official: The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply to your race.
Member of indicated race: The hell it doesn't.
"Woke": That's so racially passive-aggressive.

Who said anything about the fourteenth amendment not applying to anyone?

Cindy Ryu.

We have an obligation to guarantee equal rights under the law, very much because of the fourteenth amendment. Which means that if a law has been passed by the Congress, such as for instance the laws that created the Washington reservations, or for that matter the longstanding law that gives Reservation communities plenary rights over their own law and court system, then we all have an equal responsiblity to uphold that law.

And all that would be perfectly relevant in some alternate reality where Ms. Ryu's bill had an exemption for waters within Reservations, instead of an exemption for tribal members.

Please note that the proposed legislation actually says nothing about race, only membership in a tribe.

Please note that the Fourteenth Amendment actually says nothing about race. If a law passed by Congress set the national speed limit at 55 mph, or 65 mph for any person who could prove descent from a passenger or crewmember of the Mayflower, that would be a Fourteenth Amendment violation too.

If you are angry about what the law says,

If I got angry every time an idiot legislator introduced an obviously unconstitutional bill I'd give myself a heart attack.

But you cannot simply ignore the law as written on the basis of thinking it isn't fair to you personally.

Apparently it's a-okay for Cindy Ryu to simply ignore the law as written on the basis of thinking it isn't fair to Native Americans collectively. Of course a lot of people seem to think that the Constitution being the highest law of the land means it doesn't really count as an actual law -- so if some statute conflicts with it, that's something ordinary people can't tell by reading it in the way they can tell whether their own actions conflict with a statute by reading it. So instead we're all supposed to just obey the "lower" law and disregard the "higher" law right up until the SCOTUS gets around to reading the Constitution for us. It's a lot like the way the Church used to say they were the representatives of Jesus on earth and what that meant was that the people had to take the Church's word for what Jesus said and don't you dare read for yourself what Jesus said and Thou Shalt Not Translate the Bible out of Latin.

If that's the only way to challenge a law, there is no law. You want to change the law? The place to start is by writing your state senator.

Your idea of fairness is skewed in any case, as your senator would swiftly discover if they tried to pursue such a change.

Your and my senator is past discovering anything since she clearly has dementia. You seem to have mistaken me for a Washingtonian. And I haven't offered an opinion on whether Ryu's discriminatory law is fair -- what I pointed out the unfairness of was the unfairness of calling a guy racially passive aggressive for complaining when somebody aggressed against his race. There used to be a saying that your right to swing your fist ends at another's nose; nowadays it seems a lot of people feel your right to your nose ends at somebody else's fist.

Likewise, when the goverment seized Indian lands, under their own law that required them to guarantee certain stipulations in return, among them free exercise of economic activities.

Feel free to exhibit a treaty that says free exercise of economic activities trumps state law even when they aren't on a reservation.

You aren't owed anything, because your ancestors whose property and monetary rights you have inherited under the law, were the beneficiaries rather than the targets of these supposedly legal seizures.

You assume facts not in evidence. I have never inherited property or monetary rights from my ancestors. I may be an old guy, but as it happens my parents are still alive.

Interestingly, the treaty system was designed to undermine this system, not enforce it. What do you think would happen if all of the Indian nations were to suddenly agree that they should have exactly equal rights as any American citizen... and thus demanded to be recompensed for their loss of lands in exactly the same way value is estimated during an eminent domain seizure?

The obvious: they'd lose. But then that's the same thing that would happen if all the Brooklyn Dodgers fans were to suddenly agree to demand recompense for their loss of the Dodgers to L.A. To get compensation you have to prove you were the legal owner.

Water rights, mineral rights, everything? The US treasury would be emptied overnight.

You have a vivid imagination.

Conservatives hate the idea of recognizing treaty rights, but that's because they are ... morons who don't realize that those treaties were always designed to favor our country, and that our legal situation would become much less clear and solvent were we to openly admit that those treaties were never valid.

I'm unconvinced that you're competent to report what conservatives hate; and I'm unconvinced that their opinion is relevant to a discussion here since I don't see any conservatives.

I'm discussing the law as it actually exists, not as you think it ought to. No one would argue that Indian Law in this country is particularly well-constructed or well-considered, but no one is going to overturn precedent and legal justification altogether because you think it's unfair you have to wear water waders and citizens of federally recognized tribes do not, nor do I see the alternative system you're proposing - which would extinguish a number of communities' rights with no compensation or consideration at all - as necessarily an improvement on our current standing.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

As for defenses of racism and associated bullshit, I'm not interested.

Are you so lost that you actually believe that I defended racism?

In any case, if you read my post and understood it, then as you know, even if it were true that races do not exist, my central points - that is, those involving your claims about language, and specifically labeling - would remain correct, for the reasons I explained. Furthermore, even if the points I made had been made by an actual racist, they would remain correct: An argument stands or falls on the basis of its content, not on the basis of the character of the person making it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Unless an act of Congress had passed some law that created such a category and defined standards to determine who did or did not belong in it, and the Supreme Court deemed that law Constitutional.

No, that is a misunderstanding of how a constitutional system works. Some states passed laws banning interracial marriage. The SC found them constitutional. The SC was mistaken. In fact, whenever there is a split SC ruling, at least one of the members of the SC is mistaken. And there is nothing that would guarantee the minority is always mistaken, and the majority always correct. SC justices know that, of course. All of them have issued minority opinions in which they clearly state that the majority is in error. Note that they do not say that they would like to make the constitution different, but the constitution is whatever the majority of the court says it is. No, they realize that that is not so, and argue that the majority is mistaken.

 

[bleubird]

One of my old friends is a Tlingit canoe chief, and paddle maker. Next time I see him i will ask if this is an issue here.The Coast Guard is the authority here in all things about navigable waters.

 

[Politesse]

The SC found them constitutional.

And therefore legal. The issue is complicated, but this part of the issue is not.

 

[Bomb#20]

One of my old friends is a Tlingit canoe chief, and paddle maker. Next time I see him i will ask if this is an issue here.The Coast Guard is the authority here in all things about navigable waters.

In which case Ryu's bill is apt to go down for federal supremacy reasons without anyone needing to get to the 14th Amendment issue. And the legal definition of "navigable" is said to be "containing enough water to float a Supreme Court opinion".

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

One of my old friends is a Tlingit canoe chief, and paddle maker. Next time I see him i will ask if this is an issue here.The Coast Guard is the authority here in all things about navigable waters.

Link

Making treaties with Indian tribes was the common way to make alliances with tribes and to acquire land for settlers. The treaties generally designated specific lands for the tribe, including provisions about wildlife and other natural resources the Indians had continued use of. However, eventually all of the Treaties were broken and violated by settlers and the U.S. Government. Treaties are a large part of federal Indian law for most of the tribes in the Lower 48 states. Treaty-making with Indian tribes was terminated by Congress in 1871, just a few years after the purchase of Alaska, so there are no treaties with Alaska tribes.

 

[Bomb#20]

Please note that the Fourteenth Amendment actually says nothing about race. If a law passed by Congress set the national speed limit at 55 mph, or 65 mph for any person who could prove descent from a passenger or crewmember of the Mayflower, that would be a Fourteenth Amendment violation too.

Unless an act of Congress had passed some law that created such a category and defined standards to determine who did or did not belong in it, and the Supreme Court deemed that law Constitutional.

So is it your position that segregated schools were not in fact a Fourteenth Amendment violation after Plessey v Ferguson but before Brown v Board of Education, or is it your position that Brown v Board of Education reached backward through time and retroactively caused them to have been a Fourteenth Amendment violation all along?

I'm discussing the law as it actually exists, not as you think it ought to. No one would argue that Indian Law in this country is particularly well-constructed or well-considered, but no one is going to overturn precedent and legal justification altogether because you think it's unfair you have to wear water waders and citizens of federally recognized tribes do not,

Why do you keep pushing the myth that I've suggested unfairness to me is a reason to get rid of the legal system? Why do you keep pushing the myth that I've even suggested my having to wear water waders while citizens of federally recognized tribes do not is unfair? Do you find the debate is going so badly for you that you need to pretend you're in a completely different debate?

nor do I see the alternative system you're proposing - which would extinguish a number of communities' rights with no compensation or consideration at all - as necessarily an improvement on our current standing.

Um, where the bejesus do you see me proposing any "alternative system" that isn't simply the actual current system, "alternative" only in the sense that it's the alternative to a hypothetical system consisting of the current system plus the bill Ryu wishes to enact? I propose that the Washington legislature defeat her bill. Failing that, I propose that the Washington governor veto it. Failing that, I propose that if any non-citizen of a federally recognized tribe gets a ticket for not wearing water waders some activist group volunteer to fund an appeal, and that the Ninth Circuit quash his or her ticket. Failing that, I propose that the SCOTUS quash the ticket. So by all means, feel free to explain how any of those events "would extinguish a number of communities' rights."

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The SC found them constitutional.

And therefore legal. The issue is complicated, but this part of the issue is not.

Are you even reading the posts you reply to?

Yes, of course the SC found them legal. The SC was mistaken. They were not legal.

 

[ZiprHead]

The SC found them constitutional.

And therefore legal. The issue is complicated, but this part of the issue is not.

Are you even reading the posts you reply to?

Yes, of course the SC found them legal. The SC was mistaken. They were not legal.

Can you explain why?

 

[Politesse]

The SC found them constitutional.

And therefore legal. The issue is complicated, but this part of the issue is not.

Are you even reading the posts you reply to?

Yes, of course the SC found them legal. The SC was mistaken. They were not legal.

You are incorrect. The Supreme Court can "change its mind", and retroactively make actions legal that would have been illegal, but the legality of a ruling does not change until they have declared it thus. This isn't something that is done "on spec" at the whim of random citizens, nor could such a system be solvent.

And what you want them to declare, that honoring existing treaty rights is a violation of the 14th amendment for some reason, is an extremely unlikely ruling for them to make. You can't even make a convincing argument to 10-15 people on the internet, your court case is not going to go well.