American Indians and the Law
-
- $6.99
-
- $6.99
Publisher Description
A perfect introduction to a vital subject very few Americans understand-the constitutional status of American Indians
Few American s know that Indian tribes have a legal status unique among America's distinct racial and ethnic groups: they are sovereign governments who engage in relations with Congress. This peculiar arrangement has led to frequent legal and political disputes-indeed, the history of American Indians and American law has been one of clashing values and sometimes uneasy compromise. In this clear-sighted account, American Indian scholar N. Bruce Duthu explains the landmark cases in Indian law of the past two centuries. Exploring subjects as diverse as jurisdictional authority, control of environmental resources, and the regulations that allow the operation of gambling casinos, American Indians and the Law gives us an accessible entry point into a vital facet of Indian history.
PUBLISHERS WEEKLY
Hundreds of Native American tribes are classified as sovereign governments, a murky legal status that this study (part of the Penguin Library of American Indian History) struggles to clarify. Duthu, a law professor and member of the Houma tribe, reviews statute and case law on tribal sovereignty, especially recent Supreme Court decisions that are at odds with Congress's modern friendliness toward tribal "self-determination." His dense, dry survey explores such topics as tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians living on reservations, tribal natural resources and environmental policy, adoption law for Indian children and the perennial wrangling between tribal and state governments over taxes, regulation and gambling. Roiling these issues are two conflicts: the clash between tribal sovereignty and congressional power to legislate on Indian affairs, and the tension between tribal group rights and individual rights. Duthu's sympathies are clear: he dismisses critics of special tribal rights as ignorant and castigates infringements of tribal sovereignty as motivated by neocolonialist views of Indians as a "dying race"; but his focus on legal precedent and convention regarding tribal sovereignty rather than its concrete benefits fails to make a compelling case for the necessity of such sovereignty.
