웍워合衆国憲法２編２節２項によれば 大統領は、上院の助言と承認を得て、条約 を締結する権限を有する。ただし、この場合には、上院の出席議員の３分の２の 賛成を要する 。
웍웍 WILLIAMC.CANBY,JR.,supranote1,at20,STEPHANL.PEVAR,supranote14, at46‑47
웍웎 WILLIAMC.CANBY,JR.,supra note1,at20‑21 웍웏Ibid.
웍원 ExparteCrow Dog,109U.S.556(1883)この訴訟は、ローズバッド・イン ディアン（RosebudIndian）保留地において首長スポッティド・テイル（Spotted Tail）を殺害したとして死刑を宣告されたクロウ・ドッグ（CrowDog）が合衆国 最高裁に申し立てた（exparte）ものである。
웍웑 MajorCrimesActofMar.3,1885,48Cong.Ch.341.23Stat.362 웍웒 UnitedStatesv.Kagama,118U.S.375(1886)
웍웓 DAVIDH.GETCHES,etal.,supranote1,at165‑66
웎월 GeneralAllotmentActofFeb.8,1887,49Cong.Ch.119,24Stat.388 (codifiedat25U.S.C.A.쏃쏃331et seq)
웎웋 WILLIAMC.CANBY,JR.,supra note1,at21‑24
웎워 GeneralAllotmentActofFeb.8,1887,49Cong.Ch.119,쏃1,24Stat.388 (codifiedat25U.S.C.A.쏃331)
웎웍２分の１マイル平方の面積が160エーカーである。アメリカ合衆国における１ エーカーは約4,047平方メートルなので、160エーカーは約647,520平方メートルと なる。これは、建築面積46,755平方メートルの東京ドームおよそ14個分に相当す る。
웎웎 GeneralAllotmentActofFeb.8,1887,49Cong.Ch.119,쏃2,24Stat.388 (codifiedat25U.S.C.A.쏃331)
웎웏 GeneralAllotmentActofFeb.8,1887,49Cong.Ch.119,쏃4,24Stat.388 (codifiedat25U.S.C.A.쏃331)
웎원 GeneralAllotmentActofFeb.8,1887,49Cong.Ch.119,쏃5,24Stat.388 (codifiedat25U.S.C.A.쏃331)
웎웑 73dCong.,2dSess.,pt.9,at428‑85(1934) 웎웒 STEPHANL.PEVAR,supranote14,at8‑10 웎웓 WILLIAMC.CANBY,JR.,supra note1,at21‑24
웏월 IndianCitizenshipActofJune2,1924,68P.L.176,68Cong.Ch.234,43Stat. 253(codifiedat8U.S.C.쏃쏃1401et seq)
웏웋内田綾子、前掲注10）24頁。
웏워内田綾子、前掲注10）24‑39頁。
웏웍 IndianCitizenshipActofJune2,1924,68P.L.176,68Cong.Ch.234,쏃233, 43Stat.253(codifiedat8U.S.C.쏃1401(b))
웏웎 STEPHANL.PEVAR,supranote14,at8‑10 웏웏Id.at8‑10
웏원 LEWISMERIAM,THEPROBLEM OF THEINDIANADMINISTRATION(1928) 웏웑 VINEDELORIA,JR.,& CLIFFORDM.LYTLE,AMERICAN INDIANS,AMERIKAN
JUSTICE13‑14(1983)
웏웒 COMMISSIONER OFINDIANAFFAIRS,ANNUALREPORT,90(1934)
웏웓 IndianReorganizationActofJune18,1934,73Cong.Ch.57648Stat.984 (codifiedat25U.S.C.A.쏃쏃461et seq)
원월 IndianReorganizationActofJune18,1934,73Cong.Ch.576,쏃1,48Stat. 984(codifiedat25U.S.C.A.쏃461)
원웋 IndianReorganizationActofJune18,1934,73Cong.Ch.576,쏃4,48Stat. 985(codifiedat25U.S.C.A.쏃464)
원워 IndianReorganizationActofJune18,1934,73Cong.Ch.576,쏃5,48Stat. 985(codifiedat25U.S.C.A.쏃465)
원웍 IndianReorganizationActofJune18,1934,73Cong.Ch.576,쏃10,48Stat. 986(codifiedat25U.S.C.A.쏃470)
원웎 IndianReorganizationActofJune18,1934,73Cong.Ch.576,쏃11,48Stat. 986(codifiedat25U.S.C.A.쏃471)
원웏 IndianReorganizationActofJune18,1934,73Cong.Ch.576,쏃16,48Stat. 987(codifiedat25U.S.C.A.쏃476)
원원 IndianReorganizationActofJune18,1934,73Cong.Ch.576,쏃17,48Stat. 988(codifiedat25U.S.C.A.쏃477)
원웑 IndianReorganizationActofJune18,1934,73Cong.Ch.576,쏃18,48Stat. 988(codifiedat25U.S.C.A.쏃478)
원웒 DAVIDH.GETCHES,etal.,supranote1,at192 원웓 25U.S.C.A.쏃쏃472
웑월 DAVIDH.GETCHES,etal.,supranote1,at232
웑웋 JOHNR.WUNDER,RETAINED BY THEPEOPLE:AHISTORY OFAMERICANINDIANS AND THEBILL OFRIGHTS,66‑78(1994)
웑워 CassCounty,Minnesotav.LeechLakeBandofChippewaIndians,524U.
S.103(1998)
웑웍 VINEDELORIA,JR.,& CLIFFORDM.LYTLE,supranote57,at15 웑웎Id.at14
웑웏 STEPHANL.PEVAR,supranote14,at11
웑원 H.Con.Res.108,83Cong.Ch.173,67Stat.132(1953)
웑웑 HouseConcurrentResolution108,ActofAugust,15,1953,83P.L.280,67 Stat.588(codifiedat18U.S.C.쏃쏃1161‑62,25U.S.C.쏃쏃1321‑22,28U.S.C.쏃 1360,25U.S.C.쏃쏃1321‑26)
웑웒 Californiav.CabazonBandofMissionIndians,480U.S.202(1987) 웑웓 STEPHANL.PEVAR,supranote14,at115
웒월 Washingtonv.ConfederatedBandsandTribesofYakimaIndianNation, 439U.S.463,488(1979)
웒웋Ibid.
웒워 WILLIAMC.CANBY,JR.,supra note1,at27‑30 웒웍Ibid.
웒웎 WEEKLYCOMPILSTION OFPRESIDENTIALDOCUMENTS,vol.4,no.10at438‑448 (1968)
Indian Civil Rights Act of April 11, 1968, 90 P.L. 284, 82 Stat. 73 (codified at 25 U.S.C. 1301et seq)
Indian Civil Rights Act of April 11, 1968, 90 P.L. 284, Title IV, 401‑402, 82 Stat. 78, 79 (codified at 25 U.S.C. 1321‑22)
Indian CivilRights Act ofApril11,1968,90P.L.284,TitleIV, 403,82Stat.
79 (codified at 25 U.S.C. 1323)
Indian Civil Rights Act ofApril 11,1968,90P.L.284,TitleII, 202,82Stat.
77 (codified at 25 U.S.C. 1302)
Ralph R. Tom v. William Sutton, 533 F. 2d 1101 (9th Cir. 1976) Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964)
United States v. Ross Allen Doherty, 126 F. 3d 769 (6th Cir. 1997),cert.
denied, 524 U.S. 917 (1998)
Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 (1896) STEPHANL. PEVAR,supranote 14, at 109‑125
Donald L. Burnett, Jr.,An Historical Analysis of the 1968 ʻIndian Civil RightsʼAct, 9 HARV. J.ONLEGIS. 557 (1972)
113 CONG. REC. Part 26, at 35473, 90 Cong., 1st Sess. 6 (1967)
JOHNR.WUNDER,supranote 71,at 127,Donald L.Burnett,supranote94,at 575‑576
Indian Civil Rights Act ofApril11,1968,90P.L.284,TitleII, 203,82,Stat.
78 (codified at 25 U.S.C. 1303)
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) WILLIAMC. CANBY, JR.,supranote 1, at 400‑402
Message from the President of the United States, 1970, “Recommendation for Indian Policy”
Indian Financing Act of April 12,1974,93 P.L.262 (codified at 25 U.S.C.
1451et seq)
Indian Financing Act of April 12,1974,93 P.L.262, 2,88Stat,77(codified at 25 U.S.C. 1451)
Indian Financing Act of April 12,1974,93 P.L.262,TITLE I, 101‑108,88 Stat, 78 (codified at 25 U.S.C. 1461et seq)
Indian Financing Act of April 12,1974,93 P.L.262,TITLE IV, 401‑404, 88 Stat, 82 (codified at 25 U.S.C. 1521et seq)
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of Jan.4,1975,93 P.L. 638, 88 Stat. 2203 (codified at 25 U.S.C. 450et seq)
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of Oct.17,1988,100 P.L.497,102 Stat.2467 (codified at 25 U.S.C. 2701et seq)
Indian Arts and Crafts Act of Nov. 29, 1990, 101 P.L. 644, 104 Stat. 4662 (codified at 25 U.S.C. 305et seq)
웋월웒 IndianCountryTodayMediaNetwork,Tempest in a Tea Party Potshot, Feb.9,2011,at23씗http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com>既に掲載 終了。
On the legal status of Native Hawaiians in the United States (1)
Ken-ichi OCHIAI
The United States has “Indian Law”,which is the bodyoflaw dealing with the status ofIndian tribes and their special relationship to thefederal government. In the United States,the subjects of the Indian law are only the Indian groups which were recognized as the tribe by the federal government and the members of these groups. While the federal govern-ment has recognized 566 Indian groups as tribes until now, Native Hawaiians have never been recognized as a tribal group. Therefore Native Hawaiians are not the subjects of the Indian law but American citizens.
Therefore, in 2000, a bill of “Native Hawaiian Government Reorgani-zation Act”wasintroduced into theCongressbySenatorDanielAkaka and Daniel Inouye from Hawaii. To summarize,this bill demands the federal recognition as a tribe. It has never passed the Congress until now. To consider why Native Hawaiians want the federal recognition as a tribe, this paper has to affirm themerits ofthefederal recognition and check the present political and legal condition of Native Hawaiians.
Furthermore, after about 1980, the special measures, what we call Affirmative Actions which the federal government carried out for Indian tribes and its members came to be criticized for breaking theequal protec-tion clause in the Constituprotec-tion. Such criticism has appeared in the law-suits over the measures. This situation is also the same with the special measures which the federal government or the State of Hawaii is im-plementing for Native Hawaiians. Since Native Hawaiians are not a tribe, the current situations of the criticism over the measures are much more serious. Therefore, this paper will follow the Judgments of the Federal Supreme Court in such cases.
In a nutshell, the Federal Supreme Court has held that the special measures only for Indian tribes are not unconstitutional because these measures are not basis on the “racial” but “political” classification.
Indeed,manyindividuals who are raciallyto be classified as “Indians”but not a memberofanytribes,and ManyIndian groupswhich haveneverbeen recognized as a tribe have been excluded from the operations of such measures. So, these decisions of the court have the opposite effect on Native Hawaiians who are not a tribe.