What is the term "sovereignty"?

There are at least 13 different overlapping meaning of the term sovereignty.
Sovereignty may refer to:

1. Sovereignty as a personalized monarch (real or ritualized);
2. Sovereignty as a symbol for absolute, unlimited control or power;
3. Sovereignty as a symbol of political legitimacy;
4. Sovereignty as a symbol of political authority;
5. Sovereignty as a symbol of self-determined, national independence;
6. Sovereignty as a symbol of governance and constitutional order;
7. Sovereignty as a criterion of jurisprudential validation of all law (grundnorm, rule of recognition, sovereign);
8. Sovereignty as a symbol of the juridical personality of Sovereign Equality;
9. Sovereignty as a symbol of "recogintion";
10. Sovereignty as a formal unit of legal system;
11. Sovereignty as symbol of powers, immunities, or privileges;
12. Sovereignty as a symbol of jurisdictional competence to make and/or apply law; and
13. Sovereignty as a symbol of basic governance competencies (constitutive process).

In regards to the Virginia Indian Tribes a historical basis of sovereign immunity doctrine in 1831, the United States Supreme Court first recognized that native Indian tribes possess sovereignty that is different from foreign countries and is subject to the dominion of the United States.

United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

With respect to International Law the character of sovereignty is changing.

Read "The Changing Character of Sovereignty in International Law and International Relations."
By Winston P. Nagan and Craig Hammer

International law is an avenue the Virginia Indians could pursue in their quest for Federal Sovereignty.

Virginia's Influence on International Law

In Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh, John Marshal laid down the law with reference to Indian titles in this country.

In The Antelope, Marshal laid down the rule that a rule of international law can be changed unanimously. Not confusing law with justice, but asserting what a court must assert that it is governed by the law of the government to which that court belongs, not by any doctrine of natural rights.

Most Nations belong to either the League of Nations and the Permanent Organization of Labor. The Permanent Court of International Justice is the judicial body of these two organizations, and is bound to apply the law of these organizations in cases arising under the provisions of the Treaty under Article 26, and under Part XIII, Article 422 of the Treaty these two articles provide the method of changing the rules of international law.

Virginia statute provided a definite means over the act of Congress by which the right of expatriation could be exercised, namely a deed approved in court, or a declaration in open court relinquishing the character of the citizen.

Compare the Virginia Statute with the Act of Congress of 1868. Virginia law are based on judicial and court basis.

This is one of the basis that Virginia Indians are having to fight for Federal Recognition.

Read the article in its entirety,
Virginia's Influence on International Law
Edward A. Harriman
Virginia Law Review, Vol. 12, No.2 (Dec., 1925), pp. 135-145.

Jim Web supports Virginia Indians

Jim Webb October 16, 2007 memo in support of Thomasian E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2007 (H.R. 1294)
READ ARTICLE

Senate Indians Affairs Committee

The last action on H.R. 1294 Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2007 was on May 9, 2007 when it was received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs has been down since May and no further information on when a hearing is scheduled is available.

Point of View

Point of View

Authoring this blog was a legal exercise for a capstone class. My hope was to present facts to formulate legal answers. I felt this method would allow viewers to formulate their own answers and develop their own conclusion on this issue.

My initial intent was to generate a dialogue among legal, indian, government, and Virginia population about the federal recognition issue facing the Virginia Indian tribes.

How do you determine who is right and who is wrong on any issue?

In our American society we dictate that there must be a winner or loser in order to win an argument. Looking at all the issues and compromise is given little consideration.

Clarification using effective communications and the establishment of dialogue to state facts on this issue I felt was a good start. But then the question is what are the rules and who determines these rules based upon what principles?

Moral rights, congressional theory, business ehtics, basic human rights, self-conception or plain common sense how are the foundational lines drawn?

1. listen to what others say in detail. Rules of engagement for listening apply here.

2. feel you are heard in the discussion. All points must be made known.

3. refrain from making interpretations about someones thinking.

4. continuation of the process is important to the progress of your issue.

5. the ulimate end goal from the human point of view is to not create resistance to hearing and being heard or trigger reactions that are counterproductive.

6. treat others the way you would like to be treated.

No more information or facts can be forth coming until the Senate Committee on Indians Affairs meets on this issue. Their web site has been down for months and tracking the bill stopped with the House of Representatives.