Date

4-28-2020

Description

My research objectives for this project are to determine the consistency of Public Law 280, a statute that transferred jurisdiction of tribal nations from the federal to the state governments, and the doctrine of tribal sovereignty. Likewise, I will develop an argument for how this legal finding contributes to the conversation of what it means to be sovereign. To fulfill these objectives, I will provide a legal analysis that will answer my research question: Does Public Law 280 violate the doctrine of tribal sovereignty? After this is completed, I will compare the doctrine of tribal sovereignty with the jurisdictional stipulations put forth in Public Law 280 so that I am able to determine the consistency of the two legal texts. I will take the answer to my findings to contribute to the philosophical discussion surrounding the concept of sovereignty, where I will explore the value of sovereignty and what the contemporary application of this concept looks like. This will be done through the lens of tribal nations, a group of people for whom consideration has not been always been applied when examining the philosophical underpinnings of sovereignty. In other words, most theories of sovereignty have been developed in response to the political histories of European nations and have tested the conditions of sovereignty against those nations. Ultimately, I will create an argue to support the thesis that Public Law 280 is in contradiction with the doctrine of tribal sovereignty, and because of this, our conception of sovereignty is altered.

Share

COinS
 
Apr 28th, 12:00 AM

Through The Eyes of Tribal Nations: Public Law 280, Tribal Sovereignty, and The Value of Sovereignty

My research objectives for this project are to determine the consistency of Public Law 280, a statute that transferred jurisdiction of tribal nations from the federal to the state governments, and the doctrine of tribal sovereignty. Likewise, I will develop an argument for how this legal finding contributes to the conversation of what it means to be sovereign. To fulfill these objectives, I will provide a legal analysis that will answer my research question: Does Public Law 280 violate the doctrine of tribal sovereignty? After this is completed, I will compare the doctrine of tribal sovereignty with the jurisdictional stipulations put forth in Public Law 280 so that I am able to determine the consistency of the two legal texts. I will take the answer to my findings to contribute to the philosophical discussion surrounding the concept of sovereignty, where I will explore the value of sovereignty and what the contemporary application of this concept looks like. This will be done through the lens of tribal nations, a group of people for whom consideration has not been always been applied when examining the philosophical underpinnings of sovereignty. In other words, most theories of sovereignty have been developed in response to the political histories of European nations and have tested the conditions of sovereignty against those nations. Ultimately, I will create an argue to support the thesis that Public Law 280 is in contradiction with the doctrine of tribal sovereignty, and because of this, our conception of sovereignty is altered.