From Vox: To understand the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, you need to understand tribal sovereignty

Sovereignty is one of our key terms. And the status of indigenous people in the republic is complicated. Here's a look at a recent controversy with a focus on both.

- Click here for the article.

VM: A major component of the Dakota Access Pipeline protests is the fact that the pipeline isn’t just an environmental hazard; it’s one that is being implemented with pretty much no regard for the Standing Rock Sioux. How does this fit into a broader discussion of tribal sovereignty?

AB: This is such a great question, because the issue of tribal sovereignty, which is just as important as the environmental hazard, is getting lost in the pipeline story.

Too many people tend to think of tribal sovereignty as something that’s allocated, which can be given or taken away depending on the circumstance. But it’s not. The Standing Rock Sioux Nation’s tribal sovereignty, which essentially precedes colonization, is permanent, and it’s recognized (as opposed to granted) by the federal government.

The nation is concerned that its waters would be contaminated and that its sacred sites will be desecrated by this pipeline project. On the surface, that claim can easily look like a specific racial group got together to lodge an environmental complaint, but there’s a lot more than that: It’s actually a tribal sovereign nation that’s making an important claim about self-determination and its ability to survive and exist in the future.

But this isn’t just lost on journalists. It extends to the highest office in the federal government. During his trip to Laos this week, President Obama was asked about the pipeline. He issued, at best, a lackluster answer. Obama gave great lip service to his culturally appropriate communication with indigenous peoples, but he added that he couldn’t even provide an answer "on this particular case."

Aside from asserting ignorance on a topic I can’t help but think he’s already been briefed on, Obama also missed an opportunity to publicly recognize the Standing Rock Sioux Nation’s tribal sovereignty. That’s a real shame, as is his decision to skirt the environmental and climate hazards the pipeline presents.

A debate concerning the proper foundation of governments

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

I don't really have anything to say about this case (Scotusblog does), except that it has the greatest name ever.

Will States be Allowed to go Bankrupt?

Something for 2301s especially to chew on, especially as we begin to discuss the Constitution. This is a consequence of both the recent economic downturn and the bloated pension plans some states have designed for state workers. The question now is how states can deal with the position this has placed them in. It raises interesting constitutional questions.

From the NYT:

Policy makers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts, including the pensions they have promised to retired public workers.

Unlike cities, the states are barred from seeking protection in federal bankruptcy court. Any effort to change that status would have to clear high constitutional hurdles because the states are considered sovereign.

But proponents say some states are so burdened that the only feasible way out may be bankruptcy, giving Illinois, for example, the opportunity to do what General Motors did with the federal government’s aid.

State Sovereignty

Texas asserts its sovereignty.

The text of HCR 50.

The process from the Texas Legislature Online.

A point by point analysis to follow.

Jackson v. White

(ACC's own) Senator Jackson's bill to limit the ability of Houston Mayor Bill White to regulate Houston's air quality by regulating air polluters just outside the city's boundaries continues to move forward.


As mentioned below, this case touches on issue definition. Is this bill about the environment or about sovereignty? Or is it about anything that is has to be about in order to pass. No one wants to champion dirty air, but the environmental committees are tilted in favor of the bill while the committees that would hear a sovereignty issue are run by democrats. Jackson seem to be both saying that it is a sovereignty issue and steering it towards the environmental committees.

A run for the governorship seem to lurk behind the effort to regulate, or protect, the polluters. White is rummored to be ready to make his move and is likely to run against Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst--who is pushing Jackson's bill. Aside from the merit of either effort, is the conflict ultimately about prepositioning on issues likely to be on the agenda in 2010?

Also behind the scenes are suspisions that the mayor's techniques are heavy handed, not the only time he has been accused of this by the way.

Senate Bill 1317

The unique nature of air, and the problems it poses for policymakers seeking to clean it, is on display at the state capital.

Senate Bill 1317, authored by ACC's Senator Mike Jackson, was passed last week and has been sent to the House were it was referred to Rep Bonnen's Committee on Environmental Regulation. The bill, though deliberately vague in its wording, is generally assumed to be a response to the efforts of Houston to regulate air pollution within city limits. The multiple sources of pollution have created several "hotspots" in the city where cancer rates are argued to be higher than normal and traceable to the pollutants. Houston's mayor argues that these pollutants, and the perception that it is a polluted city, make it difficult for Houston to attract the next generation of skilled workers.

The problem is that the source of much of this pollution lies outside of Houston's city limits. Air apparently does not recognize political boundaries. For Houston to limit pollution, it would have to negatively impact the economy of neighboring cities, including those represented by Senator Jackson.

As he explains it, cities can currently "define and prohibit any nuisance within the limits of the municipality and within 5,000 feet outside those limits." As I understand it, his bill simply redefines the word "nuisance" to not include air pollution. If passed and signed into law, neither Houston nor any other city in Texas would be able to prohibit air pollution produced by a source just next to the city.

Senator Jackson calls this a sovereignty issue. A city next to Houston that wishes to allow pollutants to be produced should not have to be subject to its will. Opponents aren't buying it and are calling it an anti-clean air bill.

There's much more to this issue than this brief overview. Here's background reading:

- Opposition by the Sierra Club.
- More on the Senate's Anti Clean Air Bill.
- Houston Gets Slapped.

Now it's Italy

Days ago a German court issued charges against American officials for the "extraordinary rendition" of a German citizen, now an Italian court has done the same thing in a case involving an Egyptian on Italian soil.

Germany Sues CIA

We are about to find out whether and how U.S. power can be checked by other countries. The case involves the "extraordinary rendition" of a German citizen that the CIA believed had information about terrorism. It turned out to not be the case and he was released, but not after--he alleges--five months of torture in Afghanistan.

He is now suing the CIA and the German government has filed criminal charges against teh officers in question.

This raises questions of sovereignty, at the least. Is Germany right to act this way, or are they interfering with the U.S.'s legitimate efforts to root out and fight terrorism?