Guest Post: Monique Vondall-Rieke on Constitution Day

Happy Constitution Day Indian Country

by Monique Vondall-Rieke, JD

September 17, 2021 marks the United States’ 234th day of celebrating when the “Founding Fathers” signed the U.S. Constitution. I recall in 1976 we celebrated “200 years of Independence” as a nation. I was 11 years old, spending the summer with my aunt and uncle and visiting on weekends sometimes with my father in Texas. Everything is big in Texas so was the Nation’s 4th of July that summer – commemorating the 200-year celebration. At that time, I was eager to take part in the summer events.

I was unmoved years later when I learned of the truth behind the Doctrine of Discovery. Many legal scholars have written on this issue but none as much as Chief Justice Marshall in Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 US 543 (1823). The facts of the case involve land purchased by Johnson and some other British people in Virginia from the Piankeshaw Indian tribe. The purchase was apparently “allowed” by the King of England. Upon his death, Johnson passed on his land to his heirs. In 1818 however M’Intosh purchased 11,000 acres of land from Congress – which included the land originally purchased from Johnson. Basically, after some horrible language referring to Native Americans as “savages” and other non-politically correct terms, basically upheld the Doctrine of Discovery and claimed that tribes do not have the right to convey the land as it was claimed under the doctrine, thereby making the “chain of title” invalid for Johnson’s heirs.

Ultimately, nobody except Congress has the right to negotiate with Native American tribes stemming from this decision.

In 1934 the U.S. passed the Indian Reorganization Act (“IRA”), which was a result of the “Meriam Report” of 1928. In the report, conditions of impoverished and unhealthy living conditions on reservations, as well as the report of gross and inadequate care given to children who were victims of boarding schools, along with the General Allotment Act compelled Congress to pass the IRA as part of President Roosevelt’s “New Deal” policies. The Great Depression had begun, and the administration of the President had to act, and the result was the IRA or also called “Wheeler-Howard Act” or the “Indian New Deal.”

Armed with what are called “canned constitutions,” Native agents hired under the BIA’s new Native preference policy head out to the tribes to promote tribal constitutions. Today, we know that originally 181 tribes voted to accept the IRA constitution which, in Alaska, constitutes 1/3 of the tribes there.[1]

Many tribes have reformed their constitutions today. Strengthening tribal constitutions requires copious amounts of drafting, organization, and consultation unless a tribe has a competent team of lawyers on staff to commit time to the project.

For instance, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians early 2000s attempt at adopting a new constitution was documented in Keith Richotte’s book, Claiming Turtle Mountain’s Constitution: The History, Legacy and Future of a Tribal Nation’s Founding Documents. Richotte goes on to tell the story of how the new constitution effort failed to adopt a constitution that left the community divided. In his review of the book Carty Monette, former Turtle Mountain Community College President, criticizes Richotte for neglecting to interview survivors of the constitutional review effort, including Monette.[2] This author experienced the era of constitutional revision on that reservation, and it turned even uglier than Monette or Richotte care to admit.

Why is it so political then and so difficult for contemporary tribes to change their constitutions?

Change is hard and sometimes must be forced. Take, for instance, the right for Native Americans to vote and be considered citizens in the U.S. It wasn’t until the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act was passed which recognized all Native Americans as citizens. Prior to that, it depended on who paid taxes and in 1924 only 125,000 of about 300,000 Native Americans were considered citizens of the U.S.[3]

More than that, there were no voting protections in the Indian Citizenship Act. That was not secured until the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and today, we still have opposition on voting rights because of the types of identification allowed in states.[4]

So, what do we do from here? Tribes – its time to secure your laws, your constitutions, your children, your rights to hunt, fish, gather and to strengthen your constitutions.

Unlike the lower 48 tribes, the Alaska Native tribes do not have treaties to turn to. Instead, we have the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. This is a whole other bag of tricks the U.S. government has placed in the way of tribes acting as full sovereign nations. We must work around it and do our best to protect the interests of our tribal members. The shareholders that own the Native Corporations of Alaska are tribal members – they all struggle to achieve greatness and preservation of their cultural and traditional rights. This is true for all of the lower 48 tribes as well. We all work to preserve sovereignty.

The past two years have been a time, once again, of anger and frustration over federal policies and funding available to tribes and tribal agencies for pandemic relief. This has created once again a moment of divide and conquer – tribes have faced off with tribal corporations representing Alaska Native tribes.

We have all given so much – lower 48 tribes enjoy land into trust whereas tribes in Alaska do not. Tribes in Alaska have Native corporations acting in their best interests whereas tribes in the lower 48 were not set up by the federal government to form corporations. The trade-off is that all the tribes have given up something in return for everything. It means that the corporation I work for can bring relief to shareholders. It means that tribes in the lower 48 can offer community gardens to their members on tribal land. We all make the best of what we have.

Tribal constitutions work in this way as well. It can only produce the best of what it can under its own conditions. Why not take the next 16 years to build up our tribal constitutions like the Great Wall of China, which will protect barriers that will break down the wall and to hold in what we mean to protect – our people, our culture, our traditions and of course, our land. By the time the U.S. celebrates its 250 years of its own constitution, we will have built the Tribal Great Wall of Constitutions that will protect sovereignty and the people of our tribal nations.


[1] See Matthew Fletcher, https://turtletalk.blog/2007/11/21/the-myth-of-the-model-ira-constitution/.

[2] Found at https://tribalcollegejournal.org/claiming-turtle-mountains-constitution-the-history-legacy-and-future-of-a-tribal-nations-founding-documents/.

[3] https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-in-1924-all-indians-made-united-states-citizens.

[4] See: https://www.narf.org/cases/nd-voter-id/.

Monique Vondall-Rieke on the Indian Child Welfare Act

COMMENTS ON THE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE CHALLENGE TO ICWA

(or “More one-sided arguments that we get used to in Indian Country”)

 

By Monique Vondall-Rieke, J.D.,

Director, Association of Village Council Presidents Tribal Justice Center

 

BETHEL, AK – The announcement of A.D., et al. v. Washburn by the conservative group known as the Goldwater Institute comes with a bitter deja vu of “haven’t we heard this before?”  I’ve got a few things that I can say are wrong with the pleadings filed by Goldwater on behalf of minor American Indian children, “next friend,” and potential adoptive parents. Mostly, however, I’ve got even more to say on the one-sided EPIC report they have produced to coincide with their summation that ICWA should be declared unconstitutional.

First of all, the report does its purpose for Goldwater regardless of the medical and psychological research that exists and documents the loss of cultural identity and historical trauma that American Indian children have been victims of for centuries. The report also fails to point any blame at even the beginnings of Indian to federal government (i.e. “founding fathers”) relationships and what they are based upon. The truth of the harms of the Doctrine of Discovery is avoided again and the convoluted desire to have an American Indian child at the center of arguments of white conservatives is the Hail Mary of what Justice Scalia coined as “jiggery-pokery” in the recent SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage. (Not that I would support his use of the term or dissenting opinion, of course.) It just doesn’t surprise me that the Goldwater Institute has invested time and money into a campaign to smear a federal law that undoes what historical trauma to American Indians has done for centuries in one fell swoop of a few isolated wins against ICWA.

The report begins with unmistakably sad stories of failures within American Indian communities across America where ICWA, they allege, did not protect the child. What Goldwater Institute fails to do, however, is focus on why some children are not connected to their tribal affiliation more than when they reach an ICWA stage. What they fail to point out is the overwhelming questions like: what were the incidences that led to those people being isolated from their cultural communities? The answer in most cases is because, somewhere in their lineage, someone was removed from their cultural communities and placed either in a non-Indian home, or in a boarding school. Both situations are damaging for a number of historically traumatic reasons told in stories over and over by our ancestors.

There are two reasons I support ICWA: my oldest son and my youngest son. First, my oldest son was born at a time in my life when I was a precarious young woman who was unsettled and seeking self-identity. I went from being a Catholic to a bible-banging Christian to a Buddhist and it was not until 1999, twelve years after my oldest son was born and adopted by his biological grandparents that I was able to find my spirituality and return to a circle that had been broken by cycles of Catholic influence of my ancestors. My son was nearly adopted by a white family but, thanks to ICWA, the adoption met the family exception and he was adopted by his father’s grandparents, who agreed to keep the adoption open and allowed me to see him. Today, we have a wonderful relationship and he and his beautiful girlfriend are about to give me my third grandson. As an adult, my son sought out his American Indian heritage and came to live with me, my other two children and my husband. I thank ICWA to this day for allowing me to open my eyes to allowing his grandparents to adopt him because they raised him to be a respectful young man.

The second reason I support ICWA is because my youngest son was adopted by my husband and I in 2005. He came to us through an ICWA relative placement and is the light of our life daily. My husband is a kind, caring, loving father and I would have never been able to see that side of him without ICWA giving us the gift of my son through the relative placement requirements of ICWA. In fact, his brother and sister were adopted by my sister, so ICWA has touched many of my family’s lives and has allowed these three children to be raised in our cultural family nucleus. If it were not for ICWA, the relative would not have approached us for early placement of the children, and, without going into detail, my young son could possibly not even be alive today. So, I defend ICWA against its attack and always will. My husband, in fact, wrote a song in gratitude of ICWA. He is a non-Indian (Hungarian) and our son knows his heritage. He knows he is American Indian and can be Hungarian when he wants to be, or Irish, or French, but most of all, he knows that he is safe and loved in his home by his mother and father.

Incidentally, the report by the Goldwater Institute fails to mention that keeping American Indian children in foster care is a multi-billion dollar business for state human service agencies. The Children’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, AFCARS Report of 2013 reveals that American Indian children make up .9% of the population of U.S. children but represent 2% of the population of children in foster care in the U.S. Some states with high numbers of American Indian populations, like South Dakota, statistics reveal that up to 50% of the children in foster care placement in that state are American Indian.

The Association of Village Council Presidents in Alaska represents 56 tribes and villages in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Region (“Y-K Delta”). The newly-developed South West Region of Alaska shows, in the University of Alaska Anchorage Institute of Social and Economic Research’s report titled “Trends in Age, Gender, and Ethnicity Among Children in Foster Care in Alaska,” that for every 1000 of children in general population, 20 Alaska Native children will end up in foster care, which is more than double the rate of any other region in Alaska. The Y-K Delta has several remote villages and the Office of Children Services for Alaska is deeply involved in the placement of children out of their communities due to the lack of (1) American Indian foster homes in the region and (2) lack of kinship foster care funding for family placements, unlike other states. Although other reasons exist, the quick judgment of removal of a child takes place far more often than in other areas of the United States versus the cost of making a “good faith effort” to place the child in an American Indian home as required by ICWA. These statistics and the removal from communities only exacerbate the loss of cultural identity and increase the stigma of historical trauma on the children.

These are the reasons that ICWA is so important to American Indian children. There are some sad casualties, but in any foster care system, whether the children are American Indian or not, there are casualties and all agencies need to strive for a no-casualty goal to preserve the health and welfare of children, regardless of race or ethnicity, or, yes, even political status. The fix to those problems, however, is not to abolish the Indian Child Welfare Act and not to exploit the misfortunes of failed systems and failure stories. These facts and statistics, Goldwater Institute, is not “pure applesauce.”

 

 

Here are the lyrics to the song written by my husband, Stuart Rieke:

 

Listen to Native Peoples First

Call this a protest or a culture song

There’s no changing the laws of diversity

Jesus himself battled the Romans who were wrong

Cause Rome wanted only one set of eyes to see.

 

Children interpret their daydreams

Through a culture they inherit.

Do you want them to be held away?

Or do you hope they share it?

 

You want to help write their songs?

But first understand, first sing along.

We gotta learn to listen to Native Peoples first

Before we all try to fix this broken Universe.

 

Call this a plea to reason

Or a personal narrative.

My son sees the seasons

Through eyes of the cultures where he lives.

 

Every generation is like a wave

You’ve got to give them room to feel the shore

How can you think they’re yours to save?

They need their own center, their cultural core!

 

You want to help write their songs?

But first understand, first sing along.

We gotta learn to listen to Native Peoples first

Before we all try to fix this broken Universe