It’s business as usual in the halls of the people’s representative government when it comes to the passage of a piece of legislation referred to as VAWA -the Violence Against Women Act-Bill S 47.
Legislation that would empower the nations to address and ajudicate such crimes committed against women.
Those attempting to block passage predictably reside on the Republican side of the aisle and are attempting to qualify their “concerns” as a matter of constitutionality, while also claiming that passage would enable tribal authorities to arrest non indigenous at will.
Though it has passed in the Senate it now heads to the House where Republicans and their misogynistic cohorts the Tea Party hold sway.
The constitutionality argument is entirely without merit based on the Supreme Court ruling related to the United States vs Lara where it clearly states that Congress does have the constitutional authority to remove restrictions pertaining to a tribes jurisdiction in criminal matters.
The reality is that little in the history of the governments dealings with the nations has been constitutional in nature.
What I believe is the motivation behind this resistance to passage is the long held belief of the Republican party that whites are gifted with some innate superiority regarding other ethnic groups,specifically white males, that, and they apparently see the passage of this bill as an incremental step that would further the nations credibility in seeking and claiming sovereignty.
In a union of states where power is wielded by a centralized authority a sovereign nation or nations with the ability to govern themselves, create their own laws, and enter into treaties and agreements with whoever they desired to be sitting in their midst doesn’t go down well, it isn’t deemed acceptable. Especially in the present political climate of rumblings about states rights and even secession.
What shouldn’t be overlooked when our people rightfully take issue with this is that it is basically the same argument Russell Means presented when the Dine attempted to hold him accountable for the assault of his one armed eighty year old then Dine father in law.
Russell claimed that in not being of their nation the Dine did not have the authority or essential sovereignty to arrest or try him.
This despite the fact that he was married to a Dine woman, living on Dine land, and committed his crime on their land.
Among Russell’s more inane and predictable arguments was that it was his belief he wouldn’t receive a fair trail, as if to say his treatment of his father in law was fair-but then we’ve heard that often enough from those in the AIM leadership haven’t we?
Maybe the Republicans can present the same argument and follow the trail Russell blazed in claiming a non indigenous person wouldn’t receive a fair trial because he surely had the same sense of entitlement.
Russell claimed to be a lot of things he wasn’t, and he vacillated back and forth between political party affiliation and positions as it served whatever agenda he had-but I think one would have to say he was at a heart a Republican when it came to issues regarding our ability to adjudicate matters and sovereignty,when it came to empowering and protecting women despite all the self promotion in talk of matriarchy, liberation, patriotism, and sovereignty.
What is going on related to this legislation should be a Howard Beale moment for us, for our indigenous journalists-we should all stand up, say we’re made as hell, not going take it anymore and demand passage. That would be the true “liberator” “patriot” thing to do, and might set an example for the AIM leadership.