FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W368199099> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W368199099 startingPage "1" @default.
• W368199099 abstract "Although Congress is said to have in Indian Affairs,1 much of federal Indian law is still dictated from the judicial bench through federal common law. While Congress asserted its plenary power in a rather heavy handed manner between the early 1880s and the late 1920s,2 the New Deal era of the 1930s announced a new federal policy towards Indians, one based on respect for tribal self-government instead of assimilation and termination.3 After a brief bout with the termination policy of the 1950s, Congress once again has, since the late 1960s, embarked on a policy of tribal self-determination.5 Thus, except for a brief period in the 1950s, Congress has not used its plenary power to the detriment of Indian tribes in the last seventy years. Until the late 1970s, the Court cooperated with the policies of Congress and even assumed the lead in implementing the pro-tribal policies initiated during the New Deal era and continued in the self-determination era. Accordingly, the Court abided by some presumptions favoring tribal power over state power within Indian country6 and assumed that tribes retained all of their inherent sovereign powers not surrendered in treaties or expressly taken away by congressional statutes.7 Then in the late 1970s, under the increasing influence of soon to be Chief justice Rehnquist, the Court began to change course and started issuing rulings against tribal interests.8 As a result, the consensus among scholars and tribal advocates is that the Rehnquist Court should be viewed as anti-Indian, and tribal lawyers are actively discouraged from petitioning for certiorari from the Supreme Court. In a recent noted article, Professor David Getches noticed that the Rehnquist Court had granted certiorari to an unusual amount of cases concerning Native American issues.9 He also confirmed that, in these cases, the tribal interests were on the losing side nearly eighty percent of the time.10 Hoping to counter such decisions, Indian tribal leaders are gearing up for a major legislative effort in 2003 to have Congress overturn some of the most controversial decisions of the Rehnquist Court that have resulted in a substantial loss of tribal political power within Indian reservations.11 Attempting to determine why the Court is taking so many Indian cases and why the tribes are losing so many of them, Getches concluded that the Court's federal Indian law decisions are influenced by its general agenda disfavoring racial preference, while favoring majoritarian values and states' rights.12 Another noted scholar, Phillip Frickey, has argued that the problem with the current Court is that it has forgotten the foundationalist principles established by John Marshall in the Cherokee cases,13 and is now in the process of flattening federal Indian law into the broader American public law by importing general constitutional and sub-constitutional value into the field.14 Other scholars believe, however, that perhaps the Court's motivation is a concern with the rights of non-Indians living within reservations and being controlled by what the Court views, in spite of some continuing judicial assertions to the contrary,15 as essentially racially based organizations.16 Echoing such sentiment, Sam Deloria recently expressed the view that tribes were losing many cases affecting tribal jurisdiction over non-members because the Court was uncomfortable with the fact that non-Indian residents of the reservations could not vote in tribal elections and would never be eligible for tribal membership.17 Explaining why the Court has not returned to Chief justice Marshall's view, T. Alexander Aleinikoff stated: answer, I believe is grounded on three concerns of the Court. The first, I label the democratic deficit. The second is based on the ethno-racial basis of tribal membership. The third turns on the importance the Court attaches to citizenship in an increasingly multicultural United States.18 This article argues that the reason for the Court's anti-tribal decisions comes from its failure to integrate its general jurisprudence on federalism and associational rights, as well as its preference for formalism,19 into federal Indian law. …" @default.
• W368199099 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W368199099 creator A5084426824 @default.
• W368199099 date "2003-04-01" @default.
• W368199099 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W368199099 title "The Dialogic of Federalism in Federal Indian Law and the Rehnquist Court: The Need for Coherence and Integration" @default.
• W368199099 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W368199099 type Work @default.
• W368199099 sameAs 368199099 @default.
• W368199099 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W368199099 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W368199099 hasAuthorship W368199099A5084426824 @default.
• W368199099 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W368199099 hasConcept C17319257 @default.
• W368199099 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W368199099 hasConcept C186229450 @default.
• W368199099 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W368199099 hasConcept C2776210200 @default.
• W368199099 hasConcept C2780755764 @default.
• W368199099 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W368199099 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W368199099 hasConcept C533735693 @default.
• W368199099 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W368199099 hasConceptScore W368199099C11413529 @default.
• W368199099 hasConceptScore W368199099C17319257 @default.
• W368199099 hasConceptScore W368199099C17744445 @default.
• W368199099 hasConceptScore W368199099C186229450 @default.
• W368199099 hasConceptScore W368199099C199539241 @default.
• W368199099 hasConceptScore W368199099C2776210200 @default.
• W368199099 hasConceptScore W368199099C2780755764 @default.
• W368199099 hasConceptScore W368199099C41008148 @default.
• W368199099 hasConceptScore W368199099C48103436 @default.
• W368199099 hasConceptScore W368199099C533735693 @default.
• W368199099 hasConceptScore W368199099C94625758 @default.
• W368199099 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W368199099 hasLocation W3681990991 @default.
• W368199099 hasOpenAccess W368199099 @default.
• W368199099 hasPrimaryLocation W3681990991 @default.
• W368199099 hasRelatedWork W1479711752 @default.
• W368199099 hasRelatedWork W1491031079 @default.
• W368199099 hasRelatedWork W1527325265 @default.
• W368199099 hasRelatedWork W1583658131 @default.
• W368199099 hasRelatedWork W1591155752 @default.
• W368199099 hasRelatedWork W1594437219 @default.
• W368199099 hasRelatedWork W1994900129 @default.
• W368199099 hasRelatedWork W2090992482 @default.
• W368199099 hasRelatedWork W2273153535 @default.
• W368199099 hasRelatedWork W2591719584 @default.
• W368199099 hasRelatedWork W2595564131 @default.
• W368199099 hasRelatedWork W2765983813 @default.
• W368199099 hasRelatedWork W3122561273 @default.
• W368199099 hasRelatedWork W3123483170 @default.
• W368199099 hasRelatedWork W3124121656 @default.
• W368199099 hasRelatedWork W3161830418 @default.
• W368199099 hasRelatedWork W3173152931 @default.
• W368199099 hasRelatedWork W44903462 @default.
• W368199099 hasRelatedWork W57664683 @default.
• W368199099 hasRelatedWork W58308438 @default.
• W368199099 hasVolume "8" @default.
• W368199099 isParatext "false" @default.
• W368199099 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W368199099 magId "368199099" @default.
• W368199099 workType "article" @default.