Definition of Sovereignty
The
supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any independent
state is governed; supreme political authority; the supreme will;
paramount control of the constitution and frame of government
and its administration; the self-sufficient source of political
power, from which all specific political powers are derived; the
international independence of a state, combined with the right
and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign dictation;
also a political society, or state, which is sovereign and independent.
The power to do everything in a state without accountability,
--to make laws, to execute and to apply them, to impose and collect
taxes and levy contributions, to make war or peace, to form treaties
of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like.
Sovereignty in government is that public authority which directs
or orders what is to be done by each member associated in relation
to the end of the association. It is the supreme power by which
any citizen is governed and is the person or body of persons in
the state to whom there is politically no superior. The necessary existence of the state and that right and power which necessarily
follow is "sovereignty." By "sovereignty" in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable
power, the absolute right to govern. The word which by itself
comes nearest to being the definition of "sovereignty"
is will or volition as applied to political affairs.
from: Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sovereignty
is probably one of the most hackneyed words that is used in conjunction
with Indians. What is it, and why is it so important? It's a definition
of political abilities and it's a definition of borders and boundaries. It encapsulates the idea of nationhood. It refers to authority
and power- ultimate and final authority.
It's such a discussion among native peoples in North America,
I would say, because of our abilities at the time of "discovery"-
and I use that term under protest, as if to say that before the
advent of the white man in North America nothing existed. Where
does that idea come from? Well, it comes from the ultimate authority
of the pope at the time. I'm talking 1492. The Roman Catholic
Church was the world power. Now it's my understanding that in
the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New Testament, there
is no mention of the WesternHemisphere whatsoever- not the least
hint. How could they miss a whole hemisphere?
So here we were in our own hemisphere, developing our own ideas,
our own thoughts, and our own worldview. There were great civilizations
here at the time. In 1492, Haudenosaunee- which is better
known
as the Iroquois by the French, and Six Nations by the English-
already had several hundred years of democracy, organized democracy.
We had a constitution here based on peace, based on equity and
justice, based on unity and health.This was ongoing.
As far as I know, all the other Indian nations functioned more
or less the same way. Their leadership was chosen by the people.
Leaders were fundamentally servants to the people. And in our
confederation, there was no placefor an army. We didn't have
a concept of a standing army, and we had no police. Nor was there
a concept of jails, but there were of course fine perceptions
of right and wrong, and rules and law. I would say that in most
Indian nations, because they had inhabited one place for so long
and were a people for so long, the rules and laws were embedded
in the genes of the people more or less, in the minds of the people
certainly, but not written. Plenty of law, almost on everything,
but unspoken. Unspoken unless transgressed. There was always reaction
to transgression.
Across the water, in Europe, our brother was engulfed in great
crusades. If you look at their histories and what is in their
museums, no matter where you are- whether it's Germany or France
or England or Holland or whatever nation- in their great halls
you'll see paintings of battles. Always. That must have been a
terrible way of life. Now I speak of Europe because they are the
ones that came here. And when they came here, the pope said, If
there are no Christians on these lands, then we'll declare the
lands terra nullius- empty lands- regardless of peoples there.
And the question arose almost immediately, Were the aboriginal
people indeed people? That was the big discussion. Why? Well,
you can say a lot of things, but the issue is land- always has
been and always will be. The ideas of land tenure and ownership were brought here. We didn't
think that you could buy and sell land. In fact, the ideas of
buying and selling were concepts we didn't have. We laughed when
they told us they wanted to buy land. And we said, Well, how can
you buy land? You might just as well buy air, or buy water. But
we don't laugh anymore, because that is precisely what has happened.
Today, when you fly across this country and you look down and
you see all those squares and circles, that's land bought and
sold. Boundaries made. They did it. The whole country.
We didn't accept that, but nevertheless it was imposed. They said,
Let's make us a law here; we'll call it the law of discovery.
The first Christian nation that discovers this land will be able
to secure it and the other Christian nations will respect that.
What does that do to the original people, whose land of course
they are talking about? We just weren't included. They established
a process that eliminated the aboriginal people from title to
their own land. They set the rules at the time and we were not
subjects, we were objects, and we have been up to this point.
That's why indigenous people are not included in the Declaration
of Human Rights of the United Nations. We are still objects in
common law.
In today's courts, in New York and Massachusetts and Pennsylvania,
they talk about the pre-emption rightsof the law of discovery.
Today. Land claims are being denied on the basis of the law of
discovery. It has not gone away whatsoever. You really have to
get the case law and look at it, because they not only say that
we don't have land tenure, they say that we have only the right
of occupancy.
And they don't have to pay us anything, because we're part of
the flora and fauna of North America.
No wonder Indians wonder about what sovereignty is.
-from an interview with Oren Lyons