@jimmy_esq If someone wants to explain how a post-effective-date s705 stay is meaningfully different from an injunction, I’m all ears. (I recognize 706 might be different. But this wasn’t a 706 remedy.)
@ClarenceMaximus “Unaligned,” I think is unhelpful because it’s neither a term of art and inherently ambiguous about which “alignment” it’s referring to.
@ClarenceMaximus I think that’s much closer to right; if you read through the rest of the debates over the Civil Rights Act, there’s a decent amount of discussion of members of tribes that have treaties versus those that don’t versus individuals not members of/connected to a tribe.
@ClarenceMaximus Basically, I don’t trust his read on those debates; and though obviously you don’t have to take my word for it, I would say that you shouldn’t trust them either.
@ClarenceMaximus I think the short answer, looking at those pages and the cross-referenced pages earlier in the article, is that Lash is being unhelpfully imprecise about the Indian-law legal relationships he’s talking about—and thus about the meaning of the debates he’s analyzing.
@ClarenceMaximus If we’re talking about Indians not part of any tribe but born in unorganized territories, the distinction would be practical limits on the capacity of the U.S. government to exert authority over them there, in a way that has no current parallel.