Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

An 1835 treaty granted the Cherokee Nation a place in Congress; 187 years later, the House is considering it

Chuck Hoskins Jr.

Chuck Hoskin Jr., the principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, asked Congress to meet the terms of the treaty.

C-SPAN

On Dec. 29, 1835, U.S. officials acting at the direction of President Andrew Jackson and representatives of the Cherokee Native agreed to a treaty that required the tribe to leave its Southeast homes and migrate west of the Mississippi River.

But one section of the treaty granted the Cherokees the right to select a delegate who would serve in the House of Representatives. Specifically, Article 7 of the Treaty of New Echota states that the Cherokee Nation is “entitled to a delegate in the House of Representatives of the United States whenever Congress shall make provision for the same.” To this day, nearly two centuries later, the United States has not held up its end of the bargain.

But on Wednesday, the House Rules Committee heard testimony regarding the legal and procedural factors relating to seating a Cherokee Nation delegate. (The Senate approved the treaty, as per procedure, but the House needs to set the terms for adding a seat.)


The committee’s ranking member, Republican Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, acknowledging the government’s shortcomings, stating: “For far too long, in our nation’s history, the federal government accumulated a sorry record of making promises to tribes and then breaking those promises as soon as it was expedient to do so.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

While Cole, a member of the Chickasaw Nation, said he was happy the Cherokee Nation is seeking fulfillment of the treaty, he expressed concerns about double-representation of constituents, the character of the House and the overall constitutionality of adding an additional seat.

Chuck Hoskin Jr., the principal chief of the Cherokee Nation, noted in his opening remarks that his people were standing up for what they were promised.

“Cherokee Nation has, in fact, adhered to our obligations under these treaties. I’m here to ask the United States to do the same,” he said. “It's time for this body to honor this promise and seat our delegate in the House of Representatives. No barrier, constitutional or otherwise, prevents this.”

Kim Teehee, an attorney and Native American activist, was named delegate in 2019 but has no place to serve. Because Teehee would lack full voting privileges, like other House delegates, Hoskin claimed Teehee’s status “should not pose a significant barrier to seating.”

Mainon Schwartz, a legislative attorney at the Congressional Research Service, testified that the additional seat may pose constitutional concerns because it would be the first instance of a Native tribe getting representation, although she said the non-voting status might negate any complications.

The committee seemed receptive to the Cherokee Nation’s requests despite the questions that arose.

“As I study this issue, I believe it is the right thing to do — it’s the moral thing to do,” said Chairman Jim McGovern, a Democrat from Massachusetts.

Read More

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less