"the People's Paths!" Cherokee News Path - Chief Calls Special Council Meeting

TAHLEQUAH, Oklahoma – Federal officials from the Bureau of Indian Affairs notified the Cherokee Nation on May 21 that it does not accept a constitutional amendment that Cherokee voters approved in 2003 and the tribe’s top court ordered implemented last year.

“The Department of the Interior considered approval of the May 2003 amendment to the 1976 Cherokee constitution that would remove from the constitution the requirement that the Secretary approve all constitutional amendments for them to be effective. After thorough analysis, the Department hereby disapproves the 2003 amendment,” wrote BIA Assistant Secretary Carl J. Artman in a letter. “The Secretary must, therefore, still approve constitutional amendments before they become effective.”

In June 2006, the CN Judicial Appeal Tribunal (now Supreme Court) removed federal approval from the BIA and ruled that Article XV, Section 10 of the 1975 Constitution was self-imposed and that the Cherokee people “by their inherent sovereign power had the right to remove the self-imposed requirement,” which Cherokee voters did in 2003. Section 10 states that no amendment or new constitution shall be effective without presidential approval or his authorized representative.

At the time of the ruling, Principal Chief Chad Smith said the CN was exercising its sovereignty by approving the new constitution and the new amendment without federal approval.

Smith said the BIA notice has little practical effect, as tribal courts have ordered the CN to implement the amendment and it has been effective for a year.

“The Cherokee Nation Supreme Court spoke clearly that the BIA has no authority to approve the Cherokee Nation Constitution,” Smith said. “If the BIA has its way, the Cherokee Nation cannot even amend our own constitution. This is contrary to federal policy and court decisions handed down time after time over the last 30 years. It is insulting and wrong, and we will take all appropriate steps to defend our nationhood and right to self-determination.”

Artman stated he did not make his decision “lightly,” and he recognized “the Cherokee Nation as a sovereign nation is capable of managing its government without oversight of the federal government.”

“I also recognize that the United States 1866 treaty with the Cherokee Nation was somewhat unusual in its requirement that the Cherokee Nation recognize the rights of individual Freedmen in exchange for amnesty and the continuation of the government-to-government relationship between the United States and the (Cherokee) Nation,” he wrote. “I am concerned that approval by the department of the 2003 amendment at this time would be used by some as a validation or evidence of legitimacy of the Cherokee Nation’s removal of its Freedmen members from the tribe in apparent violation of the 1866 treaty. Therefore, I cannot approve the 2003 amendment knowing it may provide the basis for violating the terms and intent of the 1866 treaty.”

But Smith said the BIA’s assessment of the CN’s standing is the sovereignty and self-determination of all Indian tribes.

“The BIA is calling into question the right of Indians to be able to decide, through the exercise of their cherished democratic freedoms, the content of their own constitutions,” he said. “This lies at the core of our fundamental right to self-governance, a principle which has been upheld and respected by the U.S. government for decades. As Cherokee people, we must stand behind the order of our own Supreme Court.”