Here he is in all his glory, folks.

[Boris Godunov]

Come on, all you have to know is the definition of the word "sovereignty" and you get an idea what Indian Sovereignty is about. And all Bush did was repeat the word sovereignty--he didn't explain a damn thing except restate the question.

He also said it was "given." That caused quite a stink among the tribes, indeed.

[Drake Tungsten]

It was a dumb question. How exactly has the meaning of "tribal sovereignty" changed in the 21st century? It's still the same thing it always was, ie. a view that negotiations between the federal government and Indian tribes are nominally between two sovereign entities. What else was Bush supposed to say on the subject except to state the definition?

The latter part of the question (on resolving conflicts between tribes, states and the federal government) was better. The questioner really should've expanded on that, as it actually allows for an interesting response.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
What else was Bush supposed to say on the subject except to state the definition?

Which he didn't even do. He just repeated the word several times in different phrases that was just a rehash of the question that was asked. No "definition" of a word involves just repeating the word over and over.

He clearly didn't have a clue as to what the questioner was asking. And on top of that, his cluelessness led him to offend Indian tribes with his statement that sovereignty was "given." Duhhhh.

And, I'll add, that you're wrong about the sovereignty issue being the "same." That was the entire point of that part of the UNITY meeting and the issues being raised--a changing view of Native American sovereignty over their lands based on recent conflicts over things like casino building, conflicts over the administration of health services in tribal lands, etc. So it is a relevant question, because many tribes are upset and believe their sovereignty has been trampled by the federal government.

[DeathByTheSword]

......ok what give me a second......





....almost....



....wait for it.....

[The diplomat]

old news.

[Caligastia]

Damn...he is such a ****ing numbskull...

Drake, why would you even try to defend the guy? It's obvious he's a complete muppet.

[chequita guevara]

Conservatives are trying to strip Indian nations of their sovreignty, which is nothing really new. Theoretically, the Nations and the Federal government are equals, but the reality is quite different.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Conservatives are trying to strip Indian nations of their sovreignty, which is nothing really new. Theoretically, the Nations and the Federal government are equals, but the reality is quite different.

Well, not exactly. Native Sovereign Nation status was never intended to grant Indians equal status to the United States. It was designed to give something analogous to the rights of a state to specific Indian bands, with sovereignty having a similar meaning to that of state sovereignty in our Constitutional framework, without the ignorant heathen savages actually having full rights or responsibilities attendant with statehood.

NSN's are subject to Federal law in a large number of areas, and have no more right than do states to the prerogatives of a true sovereign nation - no diplomatic recognition, no rights to conduct foreign or military policy, no specific protections for citizens on "foreign" soil, legal obligations of individual members to the United States, etc. (even as citizens by the early 20th century)

Most of the real issues with native sovereignty have come about due to state and local usurpation of sovereignty, which has quite often been upheld by Federal courts. The Feds have always had significant legal inroads and abilities to limit native sovereignty, but it's a recent phenomena (brought by whites smelling a different kind of gold in Indian lands) for states to actually want to interfere. Historically, Indians were broke, so the states couldn't care less. Now in a lot of areas (including California, as maybe the worst given the fates of California bands and tribes), the states want to muscle in on the Indians over money.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

He clearly didn't have a clue as to what the questioner was asking. And on top of that, his cluelessness led him to offend Indian tribes with his statement that sovereignty was "given." Duhhhh.

Oh no! Will I get dirty looks if I go to their casinos now?

And why the **** are you posting this now? The clip is very old; surely Bush has embarassed himself more recently.

[Riesstiu IV]

Anybody who insults Bush hates Freedom.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It was designed to give something analogous to the rights of a state to specific Indian bands, with sovereignty having a similar meaning to that of state sovereignty in our Constitutional framework

Yep... Native American tribes are not soveriegn countries (after all, they aren't on the UN, are they?). The soveriegnty is the soveriegnty of a US state. Native lands are still considered American (federal) territory.

[Dis]

yeah something like that. And they still have the right to join the U.S. military (though we don't have any requirements for the miltary to be citizens as we allow filipinos and all kinds of foreign nationals into our military). And they have the right to work in american land and cities etc.

They have a little more soveriegnity than a state though. Especially considering state's rights are almost non-existant today. Alright I'm exagerrating, but state's rights are greatly diminished. This is not the case with indian reservations.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Bush while simple and haltingly delivered, is pretty much incorrect.

Sentiments I'm sure we can all agree with.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Riesstiu IV
Anybody who insults Bush hates Freedom Fries.

I always suspected Bush was a closet Frenchman.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Last Conformist


I always suspected Bush was a closet Frenchman.

I suspect him of being a closet human.