On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:10 AM, Paul Norman <penor...@mac.com> wrote:
> > On 2014-06-23 8:41 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Supreme Court rules for a second time that indian nations are domestic > dependent nations with inherent sovereign authority. This affirms that > indian reservations are higher than the state level, lower than the federal > level. > > This sounds like the SCOTUS just reaffirmed a case for indian reservations > being tagged as admin_level=3, if we're tagging for accurate status and not > for the renderer. Thoughts? > > > http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Mich_v_Bay_Mills_Indian_Cmty_No_12515_US_May_27_2014_Court_Opinio > > > Having read through the decision, it's about tribal immunity for acts > outside Indian* territory. > It is, but both Bay Mills and Kiowa came to this conclusion because of the domestic dependent nation status. Similar situations overseas that I can think of that weren't initially just slapped on a map pretty much wherever in an effort to divide, conquer and exterminate populations systematically include Scotland, Wales, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, etc. > Do you propose cutting the areas out of the states, i.e. so that IRs are > not in any admin_level=4 relations? That's what you have to do if you're > fitting IRs into the admin_level hierarchy. > No, since the states often have agreements for limited jurisdiction over things like continuing state highways and providing some services, particularly in less fortunate nations that struggle to provide basic services themselves. They're overlapping jurisdictions, typically. * The term used in the legal case > That's fine, most people who get offended by that term aren't indian themselves. Or they're Indian and frustrated with the confusion (which I get).
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
