APPENDIX I - University of Wisconsin Oshkosh University of ...



1989 WISCONSIN ACT 31 (1989 Senate Bill 31)

1989 Wis. ALS 31; 1989 Wis. Act 31; 1989 Wis. Laws 31; 1989 Wis. SB 31

118.19 (8) Beginning July 1, 1992, the state superintendent may not grant to any person a license to teach unless the person has received instruction in the study of minority group relations, including instruction in the history, culture and tribal sovereignty of the federally recognized American Indian tribes and bands located in this state.

121.02 (1) (L) 4. Beginning September 1, 1991, as part of the social studies curriculum, include instruction in the history, culture and tribal sovereignty of the federally recognized American Indian tribes and bands located in this state at least twice in the elementary grades and at least once in the high school grades.

CHIPPEWA TREATY RIGHTS

The Anishinabe in the upper Great Lakes Region kept the right to hunt, fish and gather on lands they sold to the U.S. Government in the mid 1800’s. The agreements they made are called treaties. Treaties are legally binding agreements made between two nations, in this case the United States and the Chippewa Tribe.

Today, the rights kept by the Chippewa are referred to as treaty rights. Treaty rights were never sold by the Chippewa, nor were they granted or given by the federal government. Chippewa kept the right to obtain food and other necessities on ceded lands in order to be sure future generations would always have a source of food and survival.

In legal terms, Chippewa treaty rights are called usufruct , which means the legal right to use and profit from something belonging to another. Some individuals or governments sell land but retain the mineral rights. This means the new owner has surface rights to the property (can built a house, farm and so on), but the holder of the mineral rights can drill or mine for minerals if they choose.

Treaties are recognized in the U.S. Constitution as being the “supreme law of the land” (see U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1; and Article VI, Clause 2 -- the Supremacy Clause). They are legally binding agreements and have always been respected within the framework of federal law. Recognizing this, federal courts have upheld the treaty rights of tribes in many significant court decisions across the nation.

SIGNIFICANT COURT DECISIONS

1942 Tulee v. the State of Washington: The U.S. Supreme Court decided that because a treaty takes precedence over state law, Indians with tribal rights can=t be required to buy state licenses to exercise their treaty fishing rights. This was also the first case to rule that state regulation of treaty fisheries can only be for purposes of conservation.

1972 Gurnoe v. Wisconsin: The Wisconsin Supreme Court decided in favor of the Bad River and Red Cliff tribes, that, based on the 1854 Treaty, fishing in the off-reservation waters of Lake Superior was a protected treaty right. Regulations that the state seeks to enforce against the Chippewa are reasonable and necessary when the exercise of the treaty right causes the danger for substantial depletion of the fish supply.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download