Hacker News Reader

Comment by seemslegit | Hacker News Reader

Uh, surely it doesn't mean the the people residing in the area in question can go on committing what would be a crime under Oklahoma law... right ?

View on HN

I think it means that the borders of Oklahoma get more complex when you consider the treaties that the US has entered into.

It's worth noting that according to the constitution, treaties have equal weight to the constitution. Therefore this ruling seems to me a way of saying "hey, maybe we should draw the maps according to the highest law in the land".

It has a bonus effect of signalling that the native people are actually people for both punishment AND benefit. Traditionally the US is bad at acknowledging the benefit side for folks with pigment (and doubling down on the punishment side, but that's a different discussion).

That's all nice and well, but what does it mean for the 1.8 million non-native-american people in that area, can one of them now rob another and not be guilty of a crime ? Or does it mean every robbery/arson/murder there can only be investigated by the FBI and charged in a federal court ?

Well, fortunately from what I gather, this only applies to tribal members on reservation land. So some of those 1.8 million will have it apply, and the rest wont. I mean it's right there in the article and the ruling... but you know, racist FUD is a better source I guess.

What racist FUD ? If the jurisdiction is territorial then how would state LEOs be able to enforce state laws even against non-tribe members on that territory, and if its limited to offences committed by tribe members there are potential victims both native and non-native Americans that are being harmed here - those who thought of themselves and their properties as being under protection of Oklahama state law (and paid taxes for it) and suddenly find it voided in some or all circumstances.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com