Indian Sovereignty And Kerry's Pathetic Attempt To Relive The Vietnam War
By Mary Mostert (08/02/2004)

Listening to the speeches given at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday, I was struck by the delegates who emphasized John Kerry's support of the "sovereignty" of American Indian "nations" so I did some research on the subject. And, sure enough, Kerry does have a position on the subject. Kerry's website states: he "has a comprehensive agenda to improve the lives of Native Americans.

According to the American Indian Policy Center, (AIPC) the "sovereignty" of the 550 Indian nation-states within the 50 United States of America, is defined as "an internationally recognized concept. A basic tenet of sovereignty is the power of a people to govern themselves." AIPC emphasizes that sovereignty by stating "The U.S. Constitution recognizes Indian tribes as distinct governments. It authorizes Congress to regulate commerce with "foreign nations, among the several state, and with the Indian tribes."

In practice, that means, according to various Supreme Court decisions, that Indians and Indian tribal businesses on reservations, rancherias, Indian communities or pueblos do not pay taxes to either the state or federal governments.

This untaxed condition, plus the right of the Indian nations to determine who is, and who isn't a member of their nation has naturally greatly increased the number of Indians and Indians businesses, in recent years. In some Indian nations, if a person can identify one great-great-great grandparent (1/30th of a person's genetic heritage) as having been a member of the tribe, they are recognized as having the right to citizenship in that Indian nation.

A perusal of Indian websites informs me that this untaxed condition, has been a factor in basically nullifying past efforts by Democrat presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson to end Indian second-class citizenship of Indians and assimilate them as Americans with all the rights and responsibilities as the rest of us.

According to the Constitution of the United States, as long as Indians are untaxed, they are actually not citizens. When the Constitution was written in 1787 the most contentious issue involved who would be counted as citizens of a state for the purpose of deciding how many seats in Congress went to each state. The small states, like New Jersey and Delaware, wanted each state to have the vote. In particular, they wanted to reduce the power and influence of Virginia, which had the largest population at the time. However, the delegates voted to allot the number of Representatives in the House based on population, which would allow states with the larger populations to have larger congressional delegations.

While there was no argument about counting women and children to determine representation, even though they could not vote, there was debate on counting slaves and indentured servants. There were slaves in all 13 colonies as well as indentured servants and Indians, but Virginia, with the most population, had the largest number and both Virginia and Maryland had passed laws ending the importation of slaves. Prior to the Revolution, George Mason reminded the delegates "The British Government constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop" to the slave trade. William Paterson of N.J. moved that slaves not be counted at all.

The compromise finally agree to was in Article I Section 2 which read: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons."

This was changed by section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment which reads: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective number, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed." That seems to be pretty clear that untaxed Indians living in "sovereign Indian nations," some of which make millions on gambling casinos and hotels, are not residents of the United States or of the states in which the reservation is located.

Although the US Congress passed a law in 1924 giving Indians US citizenship, that did not change the Constitution. The 14th Amendment still excludes untaxed Indians from the national political process. The treaties still maintain separate tribal "sovereignties."

So, now in election year 2004 we have what appears to be an interesting phenomenon developing. Within the borders of the United States 550 sovereign Indian nations who do not pay taxes to the United States or the individual states, are exerting a growing impact in national and state politics. California's reservation Indians number approximately 14,000 people and those reservation casinos rake in an estimated $4-$6 billion in gambling receipts annually. They contributed millions to try to save Governor Gray Davis from recall.

Yet, the budget for the Bureau of Indian affairs keeps going UP, not down. Congress appropriated $2.3 billion for 2003 which pays in part for free socialized medicine for all 1.4 million American Indians and Alaska Natives. The two top medical problems for Indians are alcoholism and diabetes which I seriously doubt afflicted their ancestors when they were chasing game on horseback to feed their families.

The discussion at the Democratic National Convention, which has centered on over-indulged and whining "minority" groups such as Indians, blacks, and women, has been a pathetic exercise to rewrite our memories by a group of aging baby boomers. In 1969 was John Kerry part of a noble band of heroes he now wants us to believe or a member the group he described in 1971 to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that had: "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan?"

One of these stories is a lie. Do we really need another accomplished Democrat liar in the White House so soon after Clinton?

Mary was involved in politics before she was old enough to vote and was writing articles for national magazines at the age of nineteen. She organized one of the first interracial youth groups in Memphis, Tennessee in the 1940s as a teenager, and was involved nationally and internationally in the civil rights movement and the peace movement.

Excluding Indians Not Taxed: Federal Censuses and Native-Americans in the 19th Century

Even the constitutional mandate, "excluding Indians not-taxed," while at first seeming clear enough, in retrospect presents ambiguities. The historical background of the phrase is complex and its meaning and impact changed over the first eleven U.S. censuses.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What about the provision in the Constitution that refers to "Indians not Taxed"?

The clause "Indians not taxed" appears in the section of the Constitution that describes how representatives are elected to Congress. The Constitution requires each state, when it counts its citizens for purposes of congressional apportionment, to exclude "Indians not taxed." this is because at the time the Constitution was written indians were not citizens. It does not confer any immunity from taxation. In fact now Indians are citizens and are taxed by the federal government and therefore they are counted even for this purpose.

Encyclopedia of North American Indians: Voting

Other states, such as Idaho, New Mexico, and Washington, disenfranchised the Indian by inserting provisions into their constitutions that disqualified from the polls all "Indians not taxed." These states apparently subscribed to the notion that Indians should not be entitled to full and equal participation in the political community since they did not contribute to the fiscal well-being of the state. This argument seems disingenuous at best, however, considering the fact that whites not taxed were allowed to vote and that Native Americans, though generally exempt from paying taxes on tribal property, frequently paid sales taxes, licensing fees, and other levies.

Golden Hill History and Hopes for the Future

The source of confusion about Indians and taxes may stem from the phrase "Indians not taxed" in Article I,S2,c1.3 of the United States Constitution. That phrase is often misunderstood as a grant of recognition of an exemption from taxes. It is not. Rather, it is a reference to the status of Indians in 1789. It directed that Indians, who were not taxed, were not to be counted when establishing the population of a state for the purpose of allocating seats in the House of Representatives.

Circumstances have changed greatly since 1789. Today there are no "Indians not taxed." In 1961, the Supreme Court, in Squire v. Capoeman, noted that "in ordinary affairs of life, not governed by treaties or remedial legislation" Indians are subject to taxation.

In sum, "in ordinary affairs of life" Indian pay taxes as other citizens do. Moreover, non-Indians on a reservation pay the same state taxes they ordinarily would pay off a reservation.