On Reservations,Sovereignty Claims by Indigenous Ppl Ought to be Prioritized Above USFG Power

"Freedom is the right to live as we wish." -- Epictetus Epictetus, a Stoic Greek slave-turned philosopher, obviously knew the woes of being oppressed; this is expressed in the aforesaid quote. Because I agree with Epictetus, I stand to affirm the resolution during today's round: Resolved: On reservations, sovereignty claims by indigenous people ought to be prioritized above the plenary power of the United States federal government. Before continuing, I will present the following definitions on which to judge today's round, found in the American Heritage dictionary: •Reservation – a tract of land set apart by the federal government for a special purpose, especially one for a Native American people •Sovereignty – complete independence and self-government •Claim – a demand for something as rightful or due •Indigenous – originating and living or occurring naturally in an area or environment •Plenary Power – power that is complete, unlimited, and full The value on which to judge today's round is that of liberty, which is defined by the American Heritage dictionary as: "the right and power to act, believe, and express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing." In this way, liberty may be thought to be the exact same thing as freedom, but in actuality, it is not. Liberty applies to control by foreign powers, as opposed to one's own government, like freedom. Liberty is the proper value for my case and for judging today's round because, on reservations, the intrusion by the supposed "plenary power" of the U.S. federal government limits the liberty of the indigenous people who live there, and therefore it is only right if the aforesaid people are allowed to govern themselves on their own reservations. The criterion, therefore, that would best achieve my value in the way I have used it is republicanism, defined as "the political value system that has dominated American political thought since the American Revolution. It stresses liberty and rights as central values, makes the people as a whole sovereign, rejects aristocracy and inherited political power, expects citizens to be independent and calls on them to perform civic duties, and is strongly opposed to corruption." If republicanism were exercised in this situation by the reservation-residing indigenous people within the United States, liberty would be achieved; however, this is only possible if the resolution statement is true. Observation I: The resolution is bound only to power exerted by the US federal government on reservations. The struggle between US plenary power and sovereignty claims by indigenous people outside of reservations is irrelevant in this debate; therefore, it need not be included in the affirmative's burden of proof, nor should it be used by the negative as an argument. Observation II: The ideas of republicanism and therefore liberty are included and accepted by the United States government. Unless my opponent can show that this statement is false, then their arguments against the affirmative value and value criterion are damaging to their own case, and therefore the affirmative wins today's debate. Contention I: The American Government Should Not Have Jurisdiction on Native American Reservations Subpoint A: Native Americans Resided on North America Long Before Europeans According to the MSN Encarta Online Encyclopedia, depending on which source you ask – archaeologists or the people themselves – people migrated to the Americas ten to fifteen thousand years ago. Here they took root, established societies and religion and a very unique culture that took these people thousands of years to fine-tune and perfect. This land was their home, their temple, and their source of food and protection. Possibly the most important part of this system, though, was the governmental system they established, chieftains and lords that provided stability for the people and the land. They accomplished all of this more than five thousand years before the Old World knew about it. Subpoint B: The U.S. Government Assumed Power over Native Americans When Great Britain and Spain and France came to the New World in the name of God, gold,and glory, they enslaved the native peoples, referring to them as savages and pagans, and killing them regularly. They considered these people second-class human beings, with themselves being first, and made sure to remind them of that through the years, with limiting agents such as the Trail of Tears that pushed these people into Oklahoma so that America could pollute more land. But from this, I see absolutely no consensual agreement between the native people and the American government that said that the government of America extended into the government of the natives. That's because essentially, there never was one. This lording of power by the American government and its cruelty towards these people became a regular thing over the hundreds of years that passed, until the government found it to be appropriate and due. But, if the ideas of liberty and republicanism are used in this situation, then the American government is simply a foreign power, and has no jurisdiction or power over the native people on reservations. Contention II: The U.S. Government Has Become England to Native Americans Back in the mid to late 1700's, England and its kings were an oppressive force against the thirteen colonies of the New World. These struggling colonies were taxed to excess, and their colonists were frequently abused, imprisoned, and put to death. Furthermore, they were subject to the far-reaching rule of England's government. It's no wonder, therefore, that they rose up against this rule and established their own independence. However, it seems that America has deemed it necessary to take up the role of eighteenth century England against the indigenous Native Americans. Those who are not students of history are doomed to repeat it, and it seems that America is doing that very thing. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: these are the things that our forefathers died to give us, and now our government finds it appropriate to take it from others for its own benefit. However, if the ideals of rights and liberty were upheld, in the way our government should do, then it would not only be right, but our duty to grant these Native Americans sovereignty on their reservations. Contention III: The U.S. Government is Violating Human Rights As I stated in my last contention, the US government contradicts its own basis of origin by taking liberty and reducing the quality of life of Native Americans. However, one may make the argument that our government also plainly disobeys another authority: the United Nations Human Rights System, which seeks to preserve three basic human rights: life, liberty, and security. This system is based off of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or UDHR, and therefore encompasses many other rights as well. What's even more shocking is that the United States is a major, influential member of the UN, yet it blatantly ignores a major creed of the very same organization. So, in conclusion, judge, I ask that you affirm today's debate, under the resolution: Resolved: On reservations, sovereignty claims by indigenous people ought to be prioritized above the plenary power of the United States federal government. The affirmative has presented and supported a value of liberty and a criterion of republicanism, as well as three contentions: the American government should not have jurisdiction on Native American reservations; the US government has become England to Native Americans; and the US government is violating human rights. I now stand open for cross examination and clarification of my main points.