"Congress, American presidents, the United States Supreme Court, and the States have all, in many varied ways, given recognition to Native American tribes as sovereign entities. Sovereign tribal authority is inherent to Indian tribes and pre-dates any other form of law in this country. It is recognized in enduring constitutional principles, and the Supreme Court has explicitly confirmed that the United States Constitution acknowledges the status of tribes as nations. Due to their sovereign, national status, tribes are political entities; they are not racial groups. Therefore, the federal and state governments must deal with tribes differently. Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (1974). The key principle here is that tribes’ political status is the fundamental difference between Indian Nations and other groups of people within the United States, such as African Americans, as John Stossel suggested. This critical and unique distinction between tribes and other groups of people is a crucial factor that Mr. Stossel, and unfortunately most Americans, is missing.

Stossel’s commentary questioning the purpose of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) is ignorant of an important principle grounded in centuries of American history, custom, and law: Indian tribes have a historic and special relationship with the federal government. At its broadest, the special relationship between the tribes and the federal government includes the mixture of legal duties, moral obligations, understandings and expectancies that have arisen from over the course of over 235 years of dealings between the federal government and tribes. In its narrowest sense, the relationship approximates that of trustee and beneficiary, with the trustee (the United States) subject to a degree of legally enforceable responsibilities.

This special relationship exists due to the nature of the two assemblies being separate sovereigns, but with tribal sovereignty existing under the umbrella of federal sovereignty. This apparent hierarchy exists because the Supreme Court declared Indian Nations to be “domestic dependent nations,” with a relationship to the United States like that of a ward to a guardian. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831). Due to their nation status, the federal government and the states have been entering into legally enforceable contracts with tribes for centuries. These agreements have been and are still made with the understanding that tribes are separate political bodies. The American government has never acknowledged any other groups’ political power, sovereignty, or national presence within the United States."

Get the Story:
Lisa Shellenberger: The Reasoning for and Purpose of the Bureau of Indian Affairs – Enlightening Journalist John Stossel (Smith, Shelton & Ragona Blog 4/14)

Related Stories:
Dan Jones: US not always the strong one in Indian relations (4/13)
Column: Fox News bloviator short on facts about tribal nations (4/4)
Jefferson Keel: John Stossel tries to pull an old April Fool's Joke (4/1)
Steve Russell: Just how much has government helped Indians? (4/1)
Coeur d'Alene Tribe wants Fox News to apologize for segment (3/30)
John Stossel: Freeloading doesn't help the freeloader Indians (3/30)
Opinion: Lumbee Tribe does better without federal assistance (3/30)