>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"
> <shempmcgurk@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"
> > > <shempmcgurk@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"
<sparaig@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71"
> > > <wayback71@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"
> > > > > > <shempmcgurk@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, MDixon6569@
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Better yet, some kid who's parents are in the Ku
> > Klux
> > > > > Klan,
> > > > > > > sends
> > > > > > > > > off his
> > > > > > > > > > DNA sample and it shows a much more prominent
> > African
> > > > link
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > two or three
> > > > > > > > > > generations back!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Apparently, there's a DNA company out there that's
> > using
> > > > DNA
> > > > > > > testing
> > > > > > > > > for the same reason...BUT for a different purpose:
> > locate
> > > > an
> > > > > > > African-
> > > > > > > > > American ancestor so that you can take advantage
of
> > > > > > affirmative-
> > > > > > > > > action!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I heard of an upper middle class family that is
using
> > the
> > > > > > father's
> > > > > > > very, very distant
> > > > > > > > American Indian heritage so his son can have an
> > advantage
> > > in
> > > > > > > college admissions in a few
> > > > > > > > years, as well as maybe qualify for money. They
could
> > care
> > > > > less
> > > > > > > absout being Indian, they
> > > > > > > > just want the benefits.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This sounds strange since there are strict guidelines
for
> > how
> > > > > > close a
> > > > > > > relationship you have to have to be considered "Native
> > > > American"
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > the US government...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know the U.S. law but in Canada you can be,
> > literally,
> > > > > > 1/64th actual Indian blood and be officially considered
> > > > an "Indian"
> > > > > > and, yet, be 63/64ths Indian blood and be denied that
> > > > > classification.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And if you get the "classification" there are very real
and
> > > > > tangible
> > > > > > benefits and advantages to it.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, that's interesting. How does one show that one is
> 1/64th
> > > > > American indian, and get benefits, and 63/64th AMerican
> inidan
> > > and
> > > > > not?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The law as it stands today says that one parent has to be
> > > > classified "Indian". And live on a reservation.
> > > >
> > > > Extrapolate the situation where one parent is Indian and the
> > other
> > > > is non-Indian and then take it down several generations
where
> > the
> > > > offspring only marry non-Indians and you'll see that,
> > > > mathematically, you can have a descendant in 6 generations
who
> > is
> > > > 1/64th of actual Indian blood is still legally an "Indian".
> > > >
> > > > Now, not to get too confusing, but the current law was
changed
> > > about
> > > > 1985. Prior to that, your FATHER had to Indian in order to
get
> > the
> > > > Indian status. So, you could have someone in, say, 1870,
and
> it
> > > was
> > > > the MOTHER who was Indian and the father who was non-Indian
and
> > > > although this first generation individual was 50/50, they
were
> > > > classified as non-Indian. Then assume that each
generation's
> > child
> > > > is a male who marries a full-blooded Indian female and
you'll
> > see
> > > > that in 6 generations the descendant would be 63/64ths
actual
> > > Indian
> > > > blood but not have the right to be classified as "Indian".
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ah, OK. After a little thought I realized it had to be
something
> > > stupid like that. Laws are seldom well thought-out, I've
noticed.
> > I
> > > just read the executive order that gives the Pres and VP the
> right
> > to
> > > classify or declassify anything they want. It makes explicit
that
> > it
> > > doesn't change the procedures for classifying, but doesn't
> mention
> > > the procedures for declassifying. Was this a deliberate
oversight
> > to
> > > allow leaks by the White house without going through proper
> > > procedures, or was it just sloppy wording?
> > >
> >
> >
> > I think certain laws are written in such a way as to
> > allow "executive orders" so that the President can change
> > regulations on existing laws...not to change the actual law but
to,
> > from an administrative standpoint, change how the law is
> implemented.
> >
> > And it's not just the president who can do it; perhaps Congress
> will
> > word the law in such a way that the Attorney-General or the
> > Secretary of Transportation can administer a law under their
> > jurisdiction in a similar manner.
> >
>
> Usually a law that is open to interpretation from the get-go is
> called "vague" and is often ruled unconstitutional merely because
> of "vagueness." Don't know that executive orders can be challenged
> for that though.
>
Not 100% sure if it's the result of an executive order or an
executive power, but isn't the one about whether the president can
order wire-taps -- the thing that's under close scrutiny now --
being challenged (at least in the court of public opinion if not a
justice court)?
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
