| HN Mirror

> I mean, they have their own criminal courts and everything, but they are limited in their ability to mete out punishment. As far as I understand, they cannot form treaties with other nations. They can't raise armies. States can compel establishments within native american tribal territories to collect sales taxes on non-native people.

Yes, that is why I made the point that I think they would be best served by granting them fully sovereign status. You can't be granted sovereign status if you're already sovereign. The USA maintains its authority over the cherokee in the same way it maintains authority over certain aspects of the states.

> The US doesn't really have subjects at all, right? We have citizens

Citizens of the US are subject to the laws of the United States. To be subject to a law means that you must follow it under penalty of legal proceedings.

> But it is likewise incorrect to say they are sovereign, at least as we typically think of national sovereignty.

This is an overly simplistic view of sovereignty. Per the Constitution, the individual 50 states are fully sovereign. They have given up some sovereignty to the federal government, in certain matters, such as international relations. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that, according to US federal law, they are to be treated as sovereign entities. This shared sovereignty is the basis of American federalism. The tribes operate under a similar arrangement. The Constitution allows the federal government to enter into treaties with the Indians as if they are foreign governments. The current US policy is to grant them 'tribal sovereignty' which is a half sovereignty enjoyed by the states. However, unlike the states, where they chose deliberately to give up their sovereignty to become part of the United States, the tribes were forced to sign treaties, forcibly uprooted, forcibly slaughtered, etc.