DOCSLIB.ORG

2017 Indian Law Handbook

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Homeland Security FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTERS OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL ARTESIA LEGAL DIVISION ARTESIA, NM INDIAN LAW HANDBOOK Second Edition March 2017 For Christy and Rian - RJD Foreword March 2017 The Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) has a vital mission: to train those who protect our homeland. As a division of the Office of Chief Counsel, the Artesia Legal Division is committed to delivering the highest quality legal training to law enforcement agencies and partner organizations in Indian Country and across the nation. In fulfilling this committment, our Attorney-Advisors provide training on all areas of criminal law and procedure, including Constitutional law, authority and jurisdiction, search and seizure, use of force, self-incrimination, courtroom evidence, courtroom testimony, electronic law and evidence, criminal statutes, civil liability and instruction unique to Indian Country: Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction, Conservation Law, and the Indian Civil Rights Act. My colleagues and I are pleased to present the second edition of this text; we hope that the Indian Law Handbook can serve all law enforcement students and law enforcement officers in Indian Country. An additional resource for federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement officers and agents is the LGD website: https://www.fletc.gov/legal-resources The LGD website has a number of resources including articles, podcasts, links, federal circuit court and Supreme Court case digests, and The Federal Law Enforcement Informer. Robert J. Duncan Editor [email protected] Foreword i (Page intentionally left blank.) Current Instructors Artesia, New Mexico Robert J. Duncan is a graduate of Bacone College (B.S. cum laude), Oklahoma City University School of Law (J.D.), and the University of Tulsa College of Law (LL.M. with honor – American Indian and Indigenous Law). He is assigned to the Artesia Legal Division as an Attorney-Advisor (Instructor) and serves as the Editor of the Indian Law Handbook, which earned a DHS/OGC Excellence in Training Award in 2016. Mr. Duncan has also been a guest lecturer at the International Law Enforcement Academy— Roswell (ILEA) and has contributed to The Informer and the Legal Division Workbook. Prior to joining FLETC, he was the Attorney- Advisor and Associate Professor of Transnational Law at Bacone College; Mr. Duncan also served as an arbitrator for the Cherokee Nation and advised colleges and universities on Title IX, VAWA and Clery Act issues in private practice. He served as a reserve law enforcement officer in Oklahoma for ten years and taught state, local and tribal law enforcement officers in the Oklahoma Council on Law Enforcement Training and Education Reserve Academy. Mr. Duncan is a member of the bars of the State of Oklahoma, the Cherokee Nation, and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. He may be contacted at (575) 748-0416 or [email protected]. Joseph P. Haefner graduated from Cornell University in 1985. Mr. Haefner served as an Unrestricted Line Officer in the U.S Navy, operating in the Western Pacific while forward deployed to Sasebo, Japan, and participated in Operation Desert Storm as part of the USS Nimitz Battle Group. He left active duty in 1993 and attended Case Western Reserve University School of Law, graduating in 1996. He then entered the private practice of law as an attorney in Medina, Ohio, before being appointed as the Deputy Law Director and Prosecutor in Stow, Ohio. In November 1999, he was elected as the Stow City Law Director and served two four-year terms. Mr. Haefner joined the FLETC Office of Chief Counsel in June 2008 and is physically located at the Artesia, New Mexico, facility, providing dedicated legal support in the areas of labor, employment, and administrative law. In 2012, he added contract and fiscal law to his areas of responsibilities supporting the Procurement Branch in Artesia. In November 2014, to better support the mission at the Current Instructors ii Artesia Training Facility, Mr. Haefner was promoted to Associate Chief Counsel and assumed the supervision and guidance of the instructional legal division staff. Mr. Haefner is licensed to practice law in Ohio. Mr. Haefner may be contacted at (575) 746-5799 or [email protected]. Michelle M. Heldmyer is a graduate of the Florida State University, earning a Bachelor’s Degree in Economics (magna cum laude) and a Juris Doctor (with honors) from the Florida State University College of Law. She is assigned to the Artesia Legal Division as an Attorney-Advisor (Instructor) and Editor of the Legal Division Workbook and is a frequent guest lecturer at the International Law Enforcement Academy—Roswell (ILEA). She began her legal career as an Assistant State Attorney in Jacksonville, Florida, during which she was assigned to the Special Prosecutions Unit to conduct wiretap operations and investigate and prosecute large-scale criminal organizations. After three years in state prosecution, Ms. Heldmyer began her 26-year service as an Assistant United States Attorney, practicing in Florida and Colorado. Ms. Heldmyer has prosecuted all types of criminal offenses and tried over 100 cases, including homicides, narcotics, fraud, tax, firearms, Indian Country cases and alien crimes, and land management violations. In addition, she was an instructor for a private consulting firm, during which she taught police liability, FOIA and narcotics enterprise tactics, and has guest lectured on many occasions at universities, police academies and law enforcement training centers. Ms. Heldmyer has also provided legal update training for the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Park Service throughout Western Colorado. Ms. Heldmyer has been the recipient of two Director’s Awards for Superior Performance from the Department of Justice, the Top Prosecutor Award from the Internal Revenue Service, an Exceptional Service Award from the Department of Homeland Security, a DHS/OGC Excellence in Training Award and three commendation letters from the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. She may be contacted at (575) 746-5986 or [email protected]. iii Current Instructors Henry W. McGowen is a graduate of the University of Texas (B.A. Economics); St. Mary’s University School of Law (J.D.) where he was inducted into the Order of Barristers; and University of Notre Dame (Executive Certificate in Management and Leadership). He is assigned to the Artesia Legal Division as an Attorney-Advisor (Instructor) and is a frequent guest lecturer at the International Law Enforcement Academy—Roswell (ILEA). Prior to joining FLETC, he spent a decade abroad working in international legal development and judicial reform programs supported by the U.S. State Department and was the program manager for the Kosovo Judicial Institute (KJI), a post-graduate magistrate school established to provide continuing legal education for sitting judges and prosecutors and initial legal magistrate training for prospective judges and prosecutors adapting to a post-conflict environment. During his tenure at KJI, he developed and delivered curriculum in areas of war crimes and comparative law, promoted policy change for the former Yugoslav judicial system, introduced new laws promulgated by the United Nations administration until the establishment of the Kosovo Assembly, and taught subsequent domestic law passed by the Kosovo Assembly. Mr. McGowen has also taught international law at Saint Mary’s School of Law, court procedure and capstone courses in the graduate program (M.S. Criminal Justice) at Saint Leo University, and comparative and transnational law at Law Enforcement Academy—Roswell (ILEA). He previously served as a judge and a prosecutor, and held a post- graduate clerkship as a briefing attorney for Hon. Lucius Bunton in the Western District of Texas. Mr. McGowen may be contacted at (575) 748-8105 or [email protected]. Current Instructors iv Past Contributors David Hall is a graduate of the University of Central Oklahoma (B.A.) and the University of Oklahoma (J.D.). He served in the Artesia Legal Division from 2012-2015 and was recognized by a DHS/OGC Excellence in Training Award for his contributions to the first edition of the Indian Law Handbook. v Past Contributors Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Survey of Indian Law History...............................1 Chapter 2 – Indian Civil Rights Act ......................................35 Chapter 3 – Indian Country Criminal Jurisdiction.................52 Chapter 4 – Conservation Law…………………….....................110 Chapter 5 – Indian Child Welfare Act……………….................134 Chapter 6 – Juvenile Law……………..…................................157 Chapter 7 – Chapter 109A Felonies ……………..………..........178 Chapter 8 – Rights of Inmates …………………..……...............202 Table of Contents vi (Page intentionally left blank.) Chapter One Survey of Indian Law History 1.1 Introduction ........................................................... 1 1.2 Discovery through PROCLAMATION OF 1763 ................ 2 1.3 Removal “On Reasonable Terms” ............................ 8 1.4 Johnson v. M’Intosh ................................................ 9 1.5 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia ................................... 12 1.6 Worcester v. Georgia ............................................. 15 1.7 Mexican Cession and Western Tribes ..................... 17 1.8 Treaty-making Gives Way to Plenary Power ........... 24 1.9 Indian Reorganization Act ....................................
Recommended publications
  • Columbia Law Review

    Columbia Law Review

    COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW VOL. 99 DECEMBER 1999 NO. 8 GLOBALISM AND THE CONSTITUTION: TREATIES, NON-SELF-EXECUTION, AND THE ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING John C. Yoo* As the globalization of society and the economy accelerates, treaties will come to assume a significant role in the regulation of domestic affairs. This Article considers whether the Constitution, as originally understood, permits treaties to directly regulate the conduct of private parties without legislative implementation. It examines the relationship between the treaty power and the legislative power during the colonial, revolutionary, Framing, and early nationalperiods to reconstruct the Framers' understandings. It concludes that the Framers believed that treaties could not exercise domestic legislative power without the consent of Congress, because of the Constitution'screation of a nationallegislature that could independently execute treaty obligations. The Framers also anticipatedthat Congress's control over treaty implementa- tion through legislation would constitute an importantcheck on the executive branch'spower in foreign affairs. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................... 1956 I. Treaties, Non-Self-Execution, and the Internationalist View ..................................................... 1962 A. The Constitutional Text ................................ 1962 B. Globalization and the PoliticalBranches: Non-Self- Execution ............................................. 1967 C. Self-Execution: The InternationalistView ................
  • Lovelock-Cave-Back-Country-Byway

    Lovelock-Cave-Back-Country-Byway

    Back Country Byways . An Invitation to Discover There is an axiom among seasoned travelers advising that the best way to get to know a new place is to get off the highway and visit the back roads, the side trails and the hidden, out-of-the-way corners where the true qualities wait to be discovered. The same axiom holds true for America’s public lands, the vast reaches of our nation that are all too often seen only from the windows of speeding cars or the tiny portholes of airliners. The Bureau of Land Management, America’s largest land managing agency, is providing an exciting opportunity for more Americans to get to know their lands by getting off the main roads for leisurely trips on a series of roads and trails being dedicated as Back Country Byways. The Back Country Byways Program, an outgrowth of the national Scenic Byways Program, is designed to encourage greater use of these existing back roads through greater public awareness. The system is BUREAUREAU OOFF LANDLAND MANMANAGEMENTGEMENT expected to expand to 100 roads when completed. In Nevada, each byway has a character and beauty of its own, taking travelers through scenery that is uniquely Nevadan, into historic areas that helped shape our state and near areas that have been largely untouched by man. They can see the multiple uses of their lands and come to a greater awareness of the need for the conservation and wise use of these resources. And all this can be accomplished at little cost to the taxpayer. Because the roads are already in place, only interpretive signs and limited facilities are needed to better serve the public.
  • PICH Awardee Impact Statements

    PICH Awardee Impact Statements

    PICH Awardee Impact Statements Background The Partnership to Improve Community Health (PICH) initiative funded 29 communities from FY2014 through FY2017 to reduce chronic disease risk factors. Awardees implemented evidence-based policy, system, and environmental interventions to improve nutrition and physical activity, reduce tobacco use and exposure, and strengthen community-clinical linkages. PICH awardee impact statements describe the short-term impacts of the PICH initiative. These impact statements were created using data from awardee Community Action Plans, awardee Progress Reports, and census data. All data were reviewed for clarity and potential duplicate reporting. Impact statements were created during two timeframes: 2016 and 2017. Each awardee has at least two impact statements; if there were additional data, additional impact statements were developed. Fort Defiance Indian Hospital Board, Inc. (Arizona) Nutrition As of September 2017, Fort Defiance Indian Hospital Board, Inc. increased access to healthy food and beverages for an estimated 59,838 Native American residents in Arizona. PICH staff supported the development of 23 farmers’ markets. To increase interest among vendors and address the misperception that farmers’ markets are for vendors who sell surplus vegetables at a low cost, PICH staff set up trainings and recruited farmers, growers, and partners to participate. Community Health Workers (CHWs) were used to find partners, organize markets, set schedules, and get community input and support. PICH staff conducted surveys at farmers’ markets and each market included a cultural component coupled with a public health component consisting of healthy living messages, eating/eating healthy, and taking care of oneself. They also invited local health related resources to participate and they assisted with outreach, public information, educations, and demonstrations.
  • An Intersubjective Treaty Power Duncan B

    An Intersubjective Treaty Power Duncan B

    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 90 | Issue 4 Article 1 5-2015 An Intersubjective Treaty Power Duncan B. Hollis Temple University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Duncan B. Hollis, An Intersubjective Treaty Power, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1415 (2014). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol90/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Law Review at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\90-4\NDL401.txt unknown Seq: 1 11-MAY-15 14:02 SYMPOSIUM AN INTERSUBJECTIVE TREATY POWER Duncan B. Hollis* INTRODUCTION How does the Constitution limit the subject matter of the U.S.’s treaties? For decades, conventional wisdom adopted a textual emphasis—prohibitions and other limits on federal authority listed in the Constitution itself (e.g., the Bill of Rights) apply to U.S. treaties.1 In contrast, proposals for subject mat- ter limitations implied by federalism fared less well. The case of Missouri v. Holland is famous precisely because it dismissed the idea of any structural “invisible radiation” from the Tenth Amendment prohibiting treaties on sub- jects falling within the states’ reserved powers.2 The Supreme Court empha- sized that U.S. treatymakers could not only conclude treaties independent of states’ rights concerns, but that the Necessary and Proper Clause authorized © 2015 Duncan B.
  • 12-158 Bond V. United States (06/02/2014)

    12-158 Bond V. United States (06/02/2014)

    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus BOND v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 12–158. Argued November 5, 2013—Decided June 2, 2014 To implement the international Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, Congress enacted the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998. The statute forbids, among other things, any person knowingly to “possess[ ] or use . any chemical weapon,” 18 U. S. C. §229(a)(1). A “chemical weapon” is “[a] toxic chemical and its precursors, except where intended for a pur- pose not prohibited under this chapter.” §229F(1)(A). A “toxic chem- ical” is “any chemical which through its chemical action on life pro- cesses can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. The term includes all such chemicals, regard- less of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.” §229F(8)(A). “[P]urposes not prohibited by this chapter” is defined as “[a]ny peaceful purpose related to an industrial, agricultural, re- search, medical, or pharmaceutical activity or other activity,” and other specific purposes.
  • American Indian Law Journal

    American Indian Law Journal

    American Indian Law Journal Volume III, Issue II • Spring 2015 “The Spirit of Justice” by Artist Terrance Guardipee Supported by the Center for Indian Law & Policy SPIRIT OF JUSTICE Terrence Guardipee and Catherine Black Horse donated this original work of art to the Center for Indian Law and Policy in November 2012 in appreciation for the work the Center engages in on behalf of Indian and Native peoples throughout the United States, including educating and training a new generation of lawyers to carry on the struggle for justice. The piece was created by Mr. Guardipee, who is from the Blackfeet Tribe in Montana and is known all over the country and internationally for his amazing ledger map collage paintings and other works of art. He was among the very first artists to revive the ledger art tradition and in the process has made it into his own map collage concept. These works of art incorporate traditional Blackfeet images into Mr. Guardipee’s contemporary form of ledger art. He attended the Institute of American Indian Arts in Sante Fe, New Mexico. His work has won top awards at the Santa Fe Market, the Heard Museum Indian Market, and the Autrey Museum Intertribal Market Place. He also has been featured a featured artists at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C., along with the Museum of Natural History in Hanover, Germany, and the Hood Museum at Dartmouth College. American Indian Law Journal Editorial Board 2014-2015 Editor-in-Chief Jocelyn McCurtain Managing Editor Callie Tift Content Editor Executive Editor Jillian Held Nancy Mendez Articles Editors Writing Competition Chair Events Coordinator Jessica Buckelew Nick Major Leticia Hernandez Jonathan Litner 2L Staffers Paul Barrera - Jessica Barry J.
  • Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 10/Tuesday, January 17, 2017

    Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 10/Tuesday, January 17, 2017

    Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2017 / Notices 4915 Applicant: Richard Killion, Lot Q–3, subdivision of the unsubdivided their government-to-government Breckenridge, TX; PRT–06382C remainder of Tract Q, U.S. Survey 2327, relationship with the United States as according to the plat thereof filed December well as the responsibilities, powers, Brenda Tapia, 7, 1988, as plat No. 88–39, Ketchikan limitations, and obligations of such Recording District, State of Alaska, Program Analyst/Data Administrator, Branch Tribes. We have continued the practice of Permits, Division of Management containing 1.08 acres. Authority. of listing the Alaska Native entities Dated: January 10, 2017. separately solely for the purpose of [FR Doc. 2017–00755 Filed 1–13–17; 8:45 am] Lawrence S. Roberts, facilitating identification of them and BILLING CODE 4333–15–P Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian reference to them given the large Affairs. number of complex Native names. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR [FR Doc. 2017–00872 Filed 1–13–17; 8:45 am] Dated: January 10, 2017. BILLING CODE 4337–15–P Lawrence S. Roberts, Bureau of Indian Affairs Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian [178A2100DD/AAKC001030/ DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Affairs. A0A501010.999900253G] Indian Tribal Entities Within the Bureau of Indian Affairs Land Acquisitions; Craig Tribal Contiguous 48 States Recognized and Association, Craig, Alaska [178A2100DD/AAKC001030/ Eligible To Receive Services From the A0A501010.999900 253G] United States Bureau of Indian Affairs AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible Interior. Oklahoma To Receive Services From the United ACTION: Notice of final agency Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians determination.
  • Federally Recognized Indian Tribes

    Federally Recognized Indian Tribes

    Appendix C: Federally Recognized Indian Tribes The following tribal entities within the contiguous 48 states are recognized and eligible to receive services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. For further information contact Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Tribal Government Services, 1849 C Street N.W., Washington, DC 20240; Telephone number (202) 208-7445.1 Figure C.1 shows the location of the Federally Recognized Tribes. 1. Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma 2. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, California 3. Ak Chin Indian Community of Papago Indians of the Maricopa, Ak Chin Reservation, Arizona 4. Alabama and Coushatta Tribes of Texas 5. Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town of the Creek Nation of Oklahoma 6. Alturas Rancheria of Pit River Indians of California 7. Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 8. Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming 9. Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians of Maine 10. Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana 11. Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of the Augustine Reservation, California 12. Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin 13. Bay Mills Indian Community of the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians Bay Mills. Reservation, Michigan 14. Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California 15. Big Lagoon Rancheria of Smith River Indians of California 1Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 220, November 13, 1996. C–1 Figure C.1.—Locations of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. C–2 16.
  • Congress's Treaty-Implementing Power in Historical Practice

    Congress's Treaty-Implementing Power in Historical Practice

    William & Mary Law Review Volume 56 (2014-2015) Issue 1 Article 3 10-2014 Congress's Treaty-Implementing Power in Historical Practice Jean Galbraith Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, International Law Commons, and the International Relations Commons Repository Citation Jean Galbraith, Congress's Treaty-Implementing Power in Historical Practice, 56 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 59 (2014), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol56/iss1/3 Copyright c 2014 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr CONGRESS’S TREATY-IMPLEMENTING POWER IN HISTORICAL PRACTICE JEAN GALBRAITH* ABSTRACT Historical practice strongly influences constitutional interpretation in foreign relations law, including most questions relating to the treaty power. Yet it is strikingly absent from the present debate over whether Congress can pass legislation implementing U.S. treaties under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Drawing on previously unexplored sources, this Article considers the historical roots of Congress’s power to implement U.S. treaties between the Founding Era and the seminal case of Missouri v. Holland in 1920. It shows that time after time, members of Congress understood the Necessary and Proper Clause to provide a constitutional basis for a congressio- nal power to implement treaties. Notably, both supporters and opponents of a strong treaty power accepted Congress’s power to implement treaties under the Necessary and Proper Clause, even though they did so for quite different reasons. This consensus helped lead to the growing practice of treaty non-self-execution, a practice that in turn has led Congress to play an increased role in treaty implementation.
  • The Trajectory of Indian Country in California: Rancherias, Villages, Pueblos, Missions, Ranchos, Reservations, Colonies, and Rancherias

    The Trajectory of Indian Country in California: Rancherias, Villages, Pueblos, Missions, Ranchos, Reservations, Colonies, and Rancherias

    Tulsa Law Review Volume 44 Issue 2 60 Years after the Enactment of the Indian Country Statute - What Was, What Is, and What Should Be Winter 2008 The Trajectory of Indian Country in California: Rancherias, Villages, Pueblos, Missions, Ranchos, Reservations, Colonies, and Rancherias William Wood Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation William Wood, The Trajectory of Indian Country in California: Rancherias, Villages, Pueblos, Missions, Ranchos, Reservations, Colonies, and Rancherias, 44 Tulsa L. Rev. 317 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol44/iss2/1 This Native American Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Wood: The Trajectory of Indian Country in California: Rancherias, Villa THE TRAJECTORY OF INDIAN COUNTRY IN CALIFORNIA: RANCHERIAS, VILLAGES, PUEBLOS, MISSIONS, RANCHOS, RESERVATIONS, COLONIES, AND RANCHERIAS William Wood* 1. INTRODUCTION This article examines the path, or trajectory,1 of Indian country in California. More precisely, it explores the origin and historical development over the last three centuries of a legal principle and practice under which a particular, protected status has been extended to land areas belonging to and occupied by indigenous peoples in what is now California. The examination shows that ever since the Spanish first established a continuing presence in California in 1769, the governing colonial regime has accorded Indian lands such status.
  • Laws As Treaties?: the Constitutionality of Congressional-Executive Agreements, 99 MICH

    Laws As Treaties?: the Constitutionality of Congressional-Executive Agreements, 99 MICH

    Michigan Law Review Volume 99 Issue 4 2001 Laws as Treaties?: The Constitutionality of Congressional- Executive Agreements John C. Yoo University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, International Law Commons, Legal History Commons, President/Executive Department Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation John C. Yoo, Laws as Treaties?: The Constitutionality of Congressional-Executive Agreements, 99 MICH. L. REV. 757 (2001). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol99/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LAWS AS TREATIES?: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS John C. Yoo* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 758 I. CONGRESSIONAL-EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS AND THE INTERNATIONALIST VISION .......................... ....................................... 764 A. The Current Importance of Congressional-Executive Agreements ................................................................ ....................... 764 1. The Explosion of Congressional-Executive
  • The Jeffersonian Treaty Clause

    The Jeffersonian Treaty Clause

    Boston University School of Law Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2006 The Jeffersonian Treaty Clause Gary Lawson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Law Commons BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW WORKING PAPER SERIES, PUBLIC LAW & LEGAL THEORY WORKING PAPER NO. 05-13 THE JEFFERSONIAN TREATY CLAUSE GARY LAWSON GUY SEIDMAN This paper can be downloaded without charge at: The Boston University School of Law Working Paper Series Index: http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/papers The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http://ssrn.com/abstract=748104 THE JEFFERSONIAN TREATY CLAUSE Gary Lawson* Guy Seidman** 2006 U. ILL. L. REV. – (forthcoming) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION: THE “NECESSARY AND PROPER” EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL TREATY POWER II. TAKING INTERPRETATION SERIOUSLY: DEFINING “REASONABLE OBSERVER ORIGINALISM” III. TAKING THOMAS JEFFERSON SERIOUSLY: DEFINING THE IMPLEMENTATIONAL TREATY POWER A. Avoiding False Starts B. The Ties that Bind C. Jefferson Speaks IV. TAKING TEXT SERIOUSLY: UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS ABOUT THE TREATY CLAUSE V. TAKING STRUCTURE SERIOUSLY: THE TREATY POWER AS AN EXECUTIVE POWER A. Vested Power as Granted Power 1. A Tale of Two Articles: Legislative and Judicial Vesting 2. Of Cabbages and Kings: Vesting Executive Power a. Defending Executive Vestments I (or The President, the Administration, and the Wardrobe) b. Defending Executive Vestments II (or Executive Power Existentialism and Foreign Affairs) c. Tailoring Executive Vestments B. Location, Location, Location: The Article II Treaty Clause C. The Limits of Executive Power: Implementation and Reasonableness 1. Execution as Implementation 2. The Principle of Reasonableness 3.