wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk"
<shempmcgurk@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk"
> > <shempmcgurk@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <sparaig@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In [email protected], "wayback71"
> > <wayback71@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk"
> > > > > <shempmcgurk@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], MDixon6569@
> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Better yet, some kid who's parents are in the Ku
> Klux
> > > > Klan,
> > > > > > sends
> > > > > > > > off his
> > > > > > > > > DNA sample and it shows a much more prominent
> African
> > > link
> > > > > > only
> > > > > > > > two or three
> > > > > > > > > generations back!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Apparently, there's a DNA company out there that's
> using
> > > DNA
> > > > > > testing
> > > > > > > > for the same reason...BUT for a different purpose:
> locate
> > > an
> > > > > > African-
> > > > > > > > American ancestor so that you can take advantage of
> > > > > affirmative-
> > > > > > > > action!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I heard of an upper middle class family that is using
> the
> > > > > father's
> > > > > > very, very distant
> > > > > > > American Indian heritage so his son can have an
> advantage
> > in
> > > > > > college admissions in a few
> > > > > > > years, as well as maybe qualify for money. They could
> care
> > > > less
> > > > > > absout being Indian, they
> > > > > > > just want the benefits.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This sounds strange since there are strict guidelines for
> how
> > > > > close a
> > > > > > relationship you have to have to be considered "Native
> > > American"
> > > > > by
> > > > > > the US government...
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know the U.S. law but in Canada you can be,
> literally,
> > > > > 1/64th actual Indian blood and be officially considered
> > > an "Indian"
> > > > > and, yet, be 63/64ths Indian blood and be denied that
> > > > classification.
> > > > >
> > > > > And if you get the "classification" there are very real and
> > > > tangible
> > > > > benefits and advantages to it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, that's interesting. How does one show that one is
1/64th
> > > > American indian, and get benefits, and 63/64th AMerican
inidan
> > and
> > > > not?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The law as it stands today says that one parent has to be
> > > classified "Indian". And live on a reservation.
> > >
> > > Extrapolate the situation where one parent is Indian and the
> other
> > > is non-Indian and then take it down several generations where
> the
> > > offspring only marry non-Indians and you'll see that,
> > > mathematically, you can have a descendant in 6 generations who
> is
> > > 1/64th of actual Indian blood is still legally an "Indian".
> > >
> > > Now, not to get too confusing, but the current law was changed
> > about
> > > 1985. Prior to that, your FATHER had to Indian in order to get
> the
> > > Indian status. So, you could have someone in, say, 1870, and
it
> > was
> > > the MOTHER who was Indian and the father who was non-Indian and
> > > although this first generation individual was 50/50, they were
> > > classified as non-Indian. Then assume that each generation's
> child
> > > is a male who marries a full-blooded Indian female and you'll
> see
> > > that in 6 generations the descendant would be 63/64ths actual
> > Indian
> > > blood but not have the right to be classified as "Indian".
> > >
> >
> > Ah, OK. After a little thought I realized it had to be something
> > stupid like that. Laws are seldom well thought-out, I've noticed.
> I
> > just read the executive order that gives the Pres and VP the
right
> to
> > classify or declassify anything they want. It makes explicit that
> it
> > doesn't change the procedures for classifying, but doesn't
mention
> > the procedures for declassifying. Was this a deliberate oversight
> to
> > allow leaks by the White house without going through proper
> > procedures, or was it just sloppy wording?
> >
>
>
> I think certain laws are written in such a way as to
> allow "executive orders" so that the President can change
> regulations on existing laws...not to change the actual law but to,
> from an administrative standpoint, change how the law is
implemented.
>
> And it's not just the president who can do it; perhaps Congress
will
> word the law in such a way that the Attorney-General or the
> Secretary of Transportation can administer a law under their
> jurisdiction in a similar manner.
>
Usually a law that is open to interpretation from the get-go is
called "vague" and is often ruled unconstitutional merely because
of "vagueness." Don't know that executive orders can be challenged
for that though.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
