. . .
Another Stereotype of the Month entry:
By William L. Thibeault
Sioux Falls
PUBLISHED: November 10, 2006
Jan L. Slunenka's slant on the Constitution in the Oct. 28 edition of the Argus Leader was like an echo of my own words — whenever I can entice someone to discuss constitutional rights with me.
The Constitution is a poorly written, very vague document that some groups — such as the ACLU, atheists, pro and con abortion groups and federal court justices — say was intentional in order for the Constitution to grow with the nation and should be interpreted to the liberal extreme.
Bunk! Any constitution can last 215 years if you ignore it or interpret it to suit your needs. This philosophy allows special interest groups to circumvent the amendment procedures in the Constitution.
I, too, don't believe in political correctness. I believe in saying what you mean and meaning what you say, then letting the chips fall where they may.
The Constitution says nothing about a complete separation of church and state, only that the government may not create a religion or prevent the formation of a religion.
The Constitution says nothing about abortion rights. But the Supreme Court did, in Roe versus Wade.
The Indian chiefs of all the nations signed a pledge of allegiance to the United States voluntarily in 1924 and in 1926 were granted citizenship. This should have ended this business of "sovereign nation." Reservations were wrong to start with and should be a regrettable thing of the past.
If groups want to live together to practice or preserve their heritage, let them do it, just like other ethnic groups do.
All over the country, there are Italian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Mexican, Amish and many other communities.
The "race card" gets played whenever — because of color — one doesn't get what he or she wants, or doesn't get special treatment, or gets caught doing something wrong or even illegal.
We need to quit blaming all of our ills on the past and start solving today's problems today.
Rob's reply
Yes, Thibeault sure does misunderstand the Constitution. At least he admitted it upfront, in the title of his screed.
>> Any constitution can last 215 years if you ignore it or interpret it to suit your needs. This philosophy allows special interest groups to circumvent the amendment procedures in the Constitution. <<
Ironically, Thibeault wants to follow the Constitution as (he thinks) it was originally intended. But he doesn't say one word about the valid Indian treaties signed under the Constitution. If the Constitution is valid as originally intended, so are those treaties...right?
>> I, too, don't believe in political correctness. I believe in saying what you mean and meaning what you say, then letting the chips fall where they may. <<
Translation: Thibeault believes in saying ignorant things and excusing his ignorance because of "PC." See Political Correctness Defined for more on the subject.
>> The Constitution says nothing about a complete separation of church and state, only that the government may not create a religion or prevent the formation of a religion. <<
What the Constitution says is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The plain English says the government may not do anything to establish religion, period—not to establish "a religion." The word "a" isn't present.
>> The Indian chiefs of all the nations signed a pledge of allegiance to the United States voluntarily in 1924 and in 1926 were granted citizenship. This should have ended this business of "sovereign nation." <<
Should've in your opinion. But didn't according to the text of the Indian Citizenship Act or subsequent court decisions. If you're into plain English, read the plain English in the Act. Tell us exactly which clause eliminated tribal sovereignty. Good luck with your answer.
>> Reservations were wrong to start with and should be a regrettable thing of the past. <<
Yes, they were wrong to start with. Instead, we should've upheld the treaties we signed—you know, the treaties Thibeault failed to mention. That would've meant the Indians retaining large portions of the continent, not just their small reservations.
If Thibeault wants to eliminate the reservation system and go back to the way things were, I'm sure most Indians would agree.
>> The "race card" gets played whenever — because of color — one doesn't get what he or she wants, or doesn't get special treatment, or gets caught doing something wrong or even illegal. <<
Thibeault is the only one playing the race card here. See Indian Rights = Special Rights for the answer to his tired canard.
>> We need to quit blaming all of our ills on the past and start solving today's problems today. <<
More irony from the person who blames our ills on previous acts (e.g., the Indian Citizenship Act) and previous interpretations of the Constitution he doesn't like.
Related links
The facts about tribal sovereignty
Readers respond
"The laws that created 'sovereignty' for Native 'Nations' DID NOT EXIST at the time of the enforcement of citizenship upon the tribes."
|
. . . |
|
All material © copyright its original owners, except where noted.
Original text and pictures © copyright 2007 by Robert Schmidt.
Copyrighted material is posted under the Fair Use provision of the Copyright Act,
which allows copying for nonprofit educational uses including criticism and commentary.
Comments sent to the publisher become the property of Blue Corn Comics
and may be used in other postings without permission.