With increasing regularity the local news has contained stories about the Native American tribes of Maine. Whether it is a story about the Penobscot Indian Nation and Passamaquoddy Tribe fighting for cleaner water in the Penobscot River, the Aroostook Band of Micmac proposal to open a tax-free tobacco shop or the resounding defeat of the casino proposal, the story takes an inevitable turn toward how the state of Maine is against what the tribes are proposing. While this is disturbing enough, it is even more disturbing that the media have failed to capture what is really at stake here – tribal sovereignty.

The Maine Coalition for Tribal Sovereignty was formed in 2001 with the goal of educating the general public, media and public officials of Maine about the inherent sovereignty of Native Americans and about the importance of de facto sovereignty to the long-term health and well-being of Native nations. In three short years, the coalition has grown to more than 17,000 members statewide. Although drawn from diverse backgrounds, the coalition members are united in support of Native American sovereignty in Maine and nationwide.

The coalition is primarily an educational group that seeks to reach out to all Mainers to help them understand the many facets of Native American sovereignty, to demonstrate that sovereignty is nonthreatening and that the protection of Native American sovereign rights is a public obligation. Perhaps most importantly, the Maine Coalition for Tribal Sovereignty promotes a continuing dialogue between tribal and nontribal people through peaceful methods, ranging from letters to the editor, meetings with public officials and peaceful demonstrations.

With the current trend in media coverage of Native American issues here in Maine, it has become apparent that the work of the coalition is as important as ever. To begin our work in earnest we have included several talking points here to offer background and to focus and guide future discussions about tribal sovereignty:

? In the truest sense, sovereignty means the supreme or absolute power of a people to govern themselves without the interference of another sovereign. In a modern world where the economics and politics of nations are inextricably linked, there are no completely sovereign nations. However, in 1832, in writing the decision for the landmark Supreme Court case Worcester v. Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote:

Indian nations [are] distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries, within which their authority is exclusive, and having a right to all the lands within those boundaries, which is not only acknowledged, but guaranteed by the United States.

? Sovereignty was not given to the tribes by European colonizers. Sovereignty cannot be given to a nation by anyone or by any other nation; it is inherent – coming from within a people or culture. The sovereignty of the more than 560 federally recognized tribes in the United States has, therefore, existed as long as the tribes themselves. Chief Justice Marshall stated in his Worcester v. Georgia decision:

Indian nations had always been considered as distinct, independent political communities, retaining their original rights, as the undisputed possessors of the soil from time immemorial.

That opinion was echoed in a Federal Appellate Court in 2002:

Indian tribes are neither states, nor part of the federal government, nor subdivisions of either. Rather, they are sovereign political entities possessed of sovereign authority not derived from the United States, which they predate. [Indian tribes are] qualified to exercise powers of self-government … by reason of their original tribal sovereignty.

? The United States Congress has plenary authority to limit, modify or even eliminate the sovereign powers of tribes. States do not have that power to take away the rights of tribes unless it was expressly granted to them by Congress. This is particularly relevant in Maine where opponents of tribes argue that the state was given complete authority over tribal matters in the Maine Indian Land Settlement Act and that the Penobscot Indian Nation and the Passamaquoddy Tribe gave up their rights of sovereignty. In actuality, the tribes did not expressly give up any of their sovereignty, especially with regard to internal tribal matters.

? The limited powers that the United States exerts over Native Americans were received from the tribes through treaties, agreements, or specific acts of Congress. Federally, Indian law has established that what is not distinctly taken away from tribes remains intact. As previously stated, tribes were sovereign long before Europeans “discovered” America. As a result, it was the tribes that gave away certain elements of their sovereignty in treaties, agreements or congressional acts. Congress did not give limited powers of sovereignty to the tribes.

? Sovereignty is vital to the long-term sustainable economic development on Native American reservations. More than 15 years of research by organizations such as the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, housed at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University (www.ksg.harvard.edu/hpaied), has shown that sustainable economic development on reservations begins and succeeds when tribes take matters into their own hands and create their own solutions to local problems. There is not a single example of a sustainable economic development on a reservation where the tribe has not exerted their rights of sovereignty. The path to self-sufficiency is not only a goal of the tribes but it makes economic sense for the remainder of the taxpayers who are subsidizing the federal funding of Native American programs.

Stephen Brimley is a member of the Maine Coalition for Tribal Sovereignty who has worked in a professional and volunteer capacity with tribes across the nation. For information about the council, contact the coalition by e-mail at kbmckaig@adelphia.net.