In Memoriam
Canada


Brown v. Board of Education

Pierce v. Society of the Sisters

Plessey v. Ferguson

Meyer v. Nebraska
_________

Who is an Indian Child?

Best Interest of the Child

Existing Indian Family Doctrine

Tribal Jurisdiction

Good Cause

Qualified Witness

Multi-Ethnic Placement Act and Amendments (MEPA)

Consitutional Issues

Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA)

Public Law 280 States

Rooker-Feldman

UCCJA

Indian Child Protection / Family Violence Prevention Act

Jay Treaty

Preliminary Articles of Peace (1782)

Definitive Treaty of Peace (1783)

Treaty of Ghent (1814)

__________

ARTICLES

ARE INDIANS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION? REFLECTIONS ON THE CHOCTAW DECISION

by William B. Allen

The New Racism

by William B. Allen

Frank King - Native Voice Newspaper

News Paper articles

Parents: The Anti - Drug

GAO Report 2005

ICWA Legislation

 

ICWA Home.. U.S.C. ICWA TEXT... ICWA Case Law ..U.S. 14th Amendment

ICWA Legislative History

 

The Original Meaning of the Indian Commerce Clause

85 Denv. U. L. Rev. 201 (2007)

 

- Published in vol 85 page 201 of Denver University Law Review -

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress only limited powers, and it says nothing about legislating for “Indian child welfare.”  So what gives Congress the power to pass a law like the ICWA?

 Some say the Founding Fathers intended to give Congress that power by a section in the Constitution allowing Congress to “regulate Commerce with the Indian Tribes.”  But is that true?

 A noted constitutional law professor recently investigated to see if laws like ICWA really are constitutional as regulating “Commerce with the Indian Tribes.”  His answer:  Absolutely not.

 Professor Rob Natelson of the University of Montana is one of the country’s top experts on the original meaning of the Constitution.  He concluded that the purpose of the section giving power to Congress to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes was to allow Congress to regulate trade between Indians and whites – no more.   Foster care, adoption, parental rights, etc. were be governed by state law, not federal law.

 Professor Natelson documented his findings in a lead article published in Denver University Law Review.  He also examined other claimed bases for laws like the ICWA, including the “Indian trust doctrine” – and he found they didn’t have any merit, either.

 “There is not much doubt on the question,” he said.  “At least according the Founding Fathers, Congress had absolutely no authority to adopt the ICWA.  Eventually, the courts may see their error and strike it down as unconstitutional.”

 The article – and some of Professor Natelson’s other research – can be found at www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm

 

back to top

 

The Original Meaning of the Indian Commerce Clause

85 Denv. U. L. Rev. 201 (2007)

 

The Legal Meaning of "Commerce" In the Commerce Clause

80 St. John's L. Rev. 789 (2006)

 


 


* In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C any copyrighted work on this website is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes

We ENCOURAGE you to go to the original sources to check for accuracy, as well as in some instances the complete document.

 


 

 

 

Contact us at

Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare
Box 253, Hillsboro, ND 58045


Email us at:
writeus@caicw.org