Summary
According to the American constitution, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 states that the representative and taxes shall be based on the several states in the US, Indians not included. Story commentators argue that Indians who inhibited several states at the time of writing were not considered citizens and did not contribute to the independent communities that held government power within states’ territories. This meant that the legal system for a Native American was different from that of a non-native American.
Before adopting constitutional amendments, Congress had the authority to initiate and regulate foreign commerce, including trade with Indian states. In contrast to the federal government, states, and foreign countries, Indian tribes were free to make their own decisions. This implied that a different justice system was provided to each of the different residents. The provision of justice was based on the state from which one came, and because there was no representation for Indians in Congress, they faced difficult times as those polishing and amending the law were not on Indians’ side of the aisle.
Following this, some amendments were made to these statutorily created sections, allowing Indians and other foreigners to be recognized as citizens and given equal opportunity in government positions. The issue of territorial sovereignty is one of the amendments that have been made. This stated that the tribal rule of Indian land was not subject to the jurisdiction of the state in which the land was situated. The plenary power doctrine explains why the judiciary has only a limited amount of authority in matters involving Native Americans. A relationship built on trust This amendment established a task for the federal government to protect the tribes, which includes an explanation of the legislation and executive authority required to carry out that responsibility.
Although many Indian nations’ modern courts now have complete confidence and credit with state courts, they still do not have direct access to United States court systems. An Indian nation must first obtain approval from the Bureau of Indian Affairs before filing a lawsuit against a state in a United States court of law. In the contemporary legal era, the courts and Congress have modified the frequently conflicting jurisdictions of tribal groups, states, and the United States regarding Indian law, resulting in a more harmonious relationship.
Last but not least, the constitution previously gave Us, the native citizens, a high degree of priority in legal matters, political power, and the commercial sector. Following the amendment of the constitution, there are now self-recognizable non-American native states that Congress governs in the same way that other states are governed. Consequently, it is noteworthy that there is still a difference, and should continue to be a difference, in the rules governing the various groups in the United States today (McNamara & Burns, 2009). They live in harmony and cohesion and are all given the same opportunities. It demonstrates that having different laws governing native and foreign Americans is counterproductive. To avoid disparities, the federal government should retain jurisdiction over all cases.
Distinction Between Crimes
Inequality on Native American reservations is at the foundation of a host of societal issues that impact the lives of Native Americans who reside in the United States. About 700,000 Native Americans reside on an Indian reservation, accounting for roughly one-third of the Native American population. Poverty and other discriminatory conditions on Native American reserves have resulted in ongoing socioeconomic disparity. Many aspects of life, such as educational qualification, healthcare quality, substance use disorders, teen pregnancy, violence, and suicide rates, differ significantly between reservations and the rest of the country, demonstrating the disparity of opportunities and circumstances between reservations and the rest of the country.
There is a significant distinction between criminal activity on Indian reservations and crime elsewhere. In the case of the law, there should be uniqueness in some circumstances, such as poverty, leading to the temptation to engage in other illegal activities. The government should refrain from imposing the same legal restrictions on those who do not participate in these activities. Sectors such as education and health care are among the most vulnerable.
These people did not have access to health care after the government cut off their supply, which harmed the health of indigenous people. The federal government reduced its funding to support these critical sectors of the economy due to a lack of support, resulting in a decline in their economic output (McNamara & Burns, 2009). It was decided to withdraw and remove teachers who provided low-standard education.
Nowadays, these differences are no longer noticeable, and the law now applies to everyone, including the most vulnerable and the least vulnerable. As part of its mission to provide justice, the law applies equally and without discrimination to all. Furthermore, the disparities that existed before the repeal of the law, such as those in the education, health, and other sectors, have been resolved in a way that does not interfere with the day-to-day operations of government activities in the United States today.
Reference
McNamara, R., & Burns, R. (2009). Multiculturalism, crime, and criminal justice (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.