More on the Lakota Re-Declaration of Independence

A couple of days ago, I referenced an press release in which activists from the Lakota nation announced their intent to withdraw from past treaties with the United States. Fox News has an article on the declaration.

“We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us,” long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means said.[...]

The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free - provided residents renounce their U.S. citizenship, Mr Means said.[...]

“This is according to the laws of the United States, specifically article six of the constitution,” which states that treaties are the supreme law of the land, he said.

“It is also within the laws on treaties passed at the Vienna Convention and put into effect by the US and the rest of the international community in 1980. We are legally within our rights to be free and independent,” said Means.

I fully support the principle, but the move seems a bit unrealistic and idealistic. An independent Lakotastan is unlikely to be economically viable, and I’d be surprised if they received as much diplomatic recognition as, say, Bophuthatswana.

Then we have the whole reality that the U.S. traditionally (even before the Bush Imperial Era) has a knack for ignoring inconvenient things, as well as recent Supreme Court rulings that have held that, while treaties can have force of law, Congressional actions to legislate over or disavow treaties trump the treaties themselves.