Jonah Patel
The US Constitution, which grants plenary power over Indian affairs to the legislative branch, contains several references to 'Indians' and 'Indian Tribes'. Notably, in Section 8, Paragraph 3, the Constitution outlines the power of Congress to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. This 16-word clause provides valuable insight into colonial dealings with Indigenous people. The Canadian Constitution also recognises three groups of Aboriginal people: Indian, Métis, and Inuit.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Section | 2 |
| Paragraph | 3 |
| Phrase | "excluding Indians not taxed" |
| Section | 8 |
| Paragraph | 3 |
| Clause | "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" |
| Number of words in the clause | 16 |
| Amendment | Fourteenth |
| Number of words in the statement about the inherent sovereignty of Indian tribes | 41 |
| Countries that amended their constitution to recognize Native sovereignty | Russia, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Columbia, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, and Honduras |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- The US Constitution grants plenary power over Indian affairs to the legislative branch
- The US Constitution recognises Indigenous nations as distinct sovereign entities
- The US Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with Indian tribes
- The US Constitution does not recognise Native nations as subordinate to the states
- The Canadian Constitution recognises three groups of aboriginal people: Indian, Métis, and Inuit
The US Constitution grants plenary power over Indian affairs to the legislative branch
The US Constitution, in Article I, grants plenary power over Indian affairs to the legislative branch. This is specifically mentioned in the section outlining the powers of Congress, which states that it has the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes".
The plenary power granted to Congress over Indian affairs means that it has absolute authority in this area, with no review or limitations on its power. This power has been interpreted to include the ability to create and charter corporate bodies, such as Federal Corporations, which can be granted derivative plenary powers within defined statutory areas. For example, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is a Federal Corporation with plenary authority over setting electricity rates for its customers.
The Supreme Court affirmed Congress's plenary power over American Indian affairs in the Kagama case, where it found that Congress had complete authority over all Indigenous people and governments. This includes the power to make laws and policies affecting Indigenous people, such as immigration laws, which are generally subject to limited judicial oversight.
However, the plenary power of Congress over Indian affairs has been a subject of debate and controversy. Some Indigenous people view it as an act of tyranny, given their lack of representation in Congress. Additionally, there are conflicting interpretations of the extent of Congress's power, with some arguing that certain Constitutional doctrines, such as the unenumerated powers of states and the rights of individuals, limit Congress's plenary power.
Overall, while the US Constitution grants plenary power over Indian affairs to the legislative branch, the specific implications and limitations of this power have been the subject of ongoing debate and interpretation.
Legislature in India: Understanding Its Constitutional Role
You may want to see also
The US Constitution recognises Indigenous nations as distinct sovereign entities
The US Constitution, in its original form, makes several references to "Indians" and "Indian Tribes". However, it is important to note that these references do not explicitly recognise Indigenous nations as sovereign entities. Instead, they reflect the colonial perspective of the time, indicating that Indigenous individuals may be considered regular state citizens for purposes of taxation and commerce.
In Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution, the phrase "excluding Indians not taxed" appears. This phrase is similar to the language in Article 9 of the Articles of Confederation, which grants Congress the power to regulate trade and manage affairs with Indians "not members of any of the States". This suggests that while Native nations were not considered formal members of states, individual Native Americans could be taxed as state citizens.
Additionally, in Section 8, Paragraph 3, the Constitution grants Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". This 16-word clause acknowledges the existence of "Indian Tribes", but it does not explicitly recognise their sovereignty.
Despite these limited references, modern legal scholarship and litigation have interpreted the US Constitution as acknowledging the inherent sovereignty of Indigenous nations. This interpretation is based on the understanding that Indigenous nations are pre-existing sovereign entities whose existence is neither beholden nor subject to federal or state authorities. This interpretation has led to a body of legislation, court decisions, and administrative rules that define the federal government's relationship with Native nations and their citizens.
Furthermore, the US Constitution grants plenary power (complete power with no limitations) over Indian affairs to the legislative branch, reaffirming the primary government-to-government relationship between the federal government and Native American nations. This relationship is not subordinate to the states, and states generally have no authority over Native governments unless expressly authorised by Congress. Federally recognised Native nations have the right to regulate activities on their lands and create and enforce their own laws.
Indian Constitution: Uniquely Democratic and Sovereign
You may want to see also
The US Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with Indian tribes
The US Constitution, as transcribed in 1787, gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". This is known as the Commerce Clause.
The Commerce Clause was included in the Constitution to address the problems of interstate trade barriers and the ability to enter into trade agreements. It enabled the creation of a free trade zone among the several states and allowed the president to negotiate, and Congress to approve, treaties to open foreign markets to American-made goods.
The original meaning of the Commerce Clause gave Congress the power to regulate, make regular, and even prohibit the trade, transportation, or movement of persons and goods from one state to a foreign nation, to another state, or to an Indian tribe. It did not include the power to regulate the economic activities that produced the goods to be traded or transported, such as manufacturing or agriculture.
The international commerce power also gave Congress the power to abolish the slave trade with other nations, which it did on January 1, 1808, the earliest date allowed by the Constitution. However, the Commerce Clause did not give Congress the power to abolish slavery that was allowed by state governments within their borders.
Challenges Faced by Framers of Indian Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The US Constitution does not recognise Native nations as subordinate to the states
The US Constitution, in its original form, does not explicitly state that Native nations are subordinate to the states. In fact, it recognises Indigenous nations as distinct sovereign entities, independent of federal and state authorities. This is reflected in the clause that gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". This indicates that Native nations are on par with foreign nations and not subject to the authority of individual states.
The inherent sovereignty of Native nations is further emphasised in the Constitution, which grants plenary power (complete power with no limitations) over Indian affairs to the legislative branch. This means that while the federal government has the authority to interact with Native nations on matters such as legal jurisdiction, land management, and economic activities, the individual states do not have inherent authority over Native governments. Any authority that the states may have over Native nations must be expressly authorised by Congress.
The recognition of Native nations as sovereign entities is also evident in the process of federal recognition. Native nations must meet specific criteria and provide extensive documentation to be federally recognised. This process affirms that the relationship between federally recognised Native nations and the United States is one between nations, and not as subordinates. Some Native nations are also recognised by the states in which they live, but this recognition does not supersede their sovereignty or independence from state authority.
It is important to note that while the Constitution does not subordinate Native nations to the states, it does include vague and potentially problematic phrases. For example, the phrase "excluding Indians not taxed" in section 2, paragraph 3, suggests that Native individuals may be considered regular state citizens for taxation purposes. However, this phrase is open to interpretation and does not necessarily imply subordination.
In conclusion, the US Constitution establishes a government-to-government relationship between the United States and Native nations, recognising their inherent sovereignty and independence from state authority. While the individual states generally have no authority over Native governments, the complex interplay between federal and state recognition of Native nations has led to ongoing litigation and interpretation of Native rights and sovereignty.
Understanding India's Definition of Domestic Violence
You may want to see also
The Canadian Constitution recognises three groups of aboriginal people: Indian, Métis, and Inuit
The Canadian Constitution, under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, recognises three groups of Aboriginal people: Indian, Métis, and Inuit. The term "Indian" in the Constitution refers specifically to First Nations persons who are entitled to registration under the Indian Act. This act is the primary legislation through which the federal government administers Indian status, local First Nations governments, and the management of reserve land and communal monies.
The Indian Act, first passed in 1876, has been highly controversial and criticised as a human rights abuse by groups such as Amnesty International and the United Nations. It has been amended numerous times to remove oppressive and restrictive laws, including sex-based inequities and gender discrimination. Despite this, the Act still largely retains its original form and continues to impact First Nations cultures, economies, politics, and communities.
The Act does not include Métis or Inuit peoples, and there is no separate register at ISC for these groups. While the Indian Act is specific to "Indians" as legally defined, the broader term "Indigenous" is often used to refer to all three groups recognised in the Canadian Constitution, including Indian, Métis, and Inuit peoples.
It is important to note that many Indigenous people in Canada prefer not to use the term "Indian," viewing it as rooted in colonialism and racism. Instead, terms such as First Nations or Status Indians are often used to refer specifically to registered Indians under the Indian Act.
In summary, the Canadian Constitution recognises three distinct groups of Aboriginal people: Indian, Métis, and Inuit. The Indian Act, which is specific to Indians as legally defined, has been a source of controversy and criticism, and efforts to abolish it have been resisted by Aboriginal peoples seeking to maintain their unique legal status. The terms "Indian," "Indigenous," and "First Nations" have nuanced and evolving meanings, reflecting the complex history and ongoing struggles for self-governance and equality faced by these communities.
Understanding Indian Country in Oklahoma: Defining Sovereign Lands
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The word 'Indian' appears in the US Constitution in Section 2, Paragraph 3, in the formula for determining the apportionment for representatives to Congress and direct taxes. The phrase used is "excluding Indians not taxed".
The phrase "excluding Indians not taxed" is a variation of the language in Article 9 of the Articles of Confederation, granting Congress the exclusive right and power to regulate trade and manage affairs with Indians "not members of any of the States". It specifies that while Native nations have no formal relations with states, Native individuals may be considered regular state citizens for the purposes of taxation.
Section 8, Paragraph 3 gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The US Constitution also grants plenary power over Indian affairs to the legislative branch.
