| MEMBERSHIP |
| Home | About | Conferences & Events | Policy Issues | Resolutions | Policy Research Center | Tribal Directory | Get Involved |
|
|
![]() |
You are here: Home » Policy Issues » Tribal Governance » Self-Determination and Self-Governance » Letter supporting the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005 (2005/08/17)August 17, 2005 The Honorable Steve Chabot Chairman, House Subcommittee on the Constitution H2-362 Ford House Office Bldg. Washington DC 20515 The Honorable Jerrold Nadler Ranking Member, House Subcommittee on the Constitution H2-362 Ford House Office Bldg. Washington DC 20515 cc: House Judiciary Committee Members House Resources Committee Members House Native American Caucus
H.R. 309 would reaffirm the Native Hawaiian right to a limited form of self-governance. Some critics have misstated the effect of H.R. 309. The unique legal and political relationship that indigenous Hawaiians have with the United States is not race based but is based on their status as aboriginal people with pre-existing governments with whom the U.S. entered treaties and other agreements. It is this historical, political reality that provides the foundation for the unique relationship that has always existed--and continues to exist today--between the United States and its indigenous peoples.
The argument that recognition of a Native Hawaiian governing entity would establish a race-based government is antithetical to the very foundation of the United States government's relationship with its indigenous peoples. This argument was expressly repudiated by the Supreme Court in Morton v. Mancari and is worth quoting here:
Literally every piece of legislation dealing with Indian tribes and reservations, and certainly all legislation dealing with the B.I.A, single out for special treatment a constituency of tribal Indians living on or near reservations. If these laws, derived from historical relationships and explicitly designed to help only Indians, were deemed invidious racial discrimination, an entire Title of the United States Code (25 U.S.C.) would be effectively erased and the solemn commitment of the Government toward the Indians would be jeopardized. . . . As long as the special treatment can be tied rationally to the fulfillment of Congress' unique obligation toward the Indians, such legislative judgments will not be disturbed. Here, where the preference is reasonable and rationally designed to further Indian self- government, we cannot say that Congress' classification violates due process. 417 U.S. 535 (1974). H.R. 309 would establish a level of parity for Native Hawaiians with the other indigenous peoples of America. To invoke the equal protection or due process clauses of the Constitution in this context is a distortion of what those clauses were intended to do. Those submitting this argument are using the very cornerstones of justice and fairness in our democracy to deny equal treatment to one group of indigenous people.
NCAI represents over 250 tribal governments, and over the past five years the member tribes of NCAI have approved four resolutions that support the self-governance rights of Native Hawaiians and call on the federal government to establish a true government-to-government relationship with the Native Hawaiian governing entity. NCAI has, and will continue to support, whatever path the Native Hawaiian people choose to assure their self-determination. H.R. 309 will rectify a long-
Tex G. Hall President National Congress of American Indians |
![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||
National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) Copyright © 2001-2012 National Congress of American Indians |