ncluding the states, from dealing with the Indians but them (the federal government). This trend is also evident in the fact that the Supreme Court has always been on the Oneidas side, upholding all of their claims in the face of intense pressure from New York State and potentially affected citizens. In New York State however it appear that there is a regularized pattern of dislike and dishonesty toward the Indians. It is also apparent that New York regularly ignores the decisions that the federal government makes with regards to Indian land claims. In addition to the Oneida claim the state is currently in litigation with the Cayuga Indians on a similar claim for ancestral lands. New York has blatantly disregarded the federal government by not honoring the Treaty of Canandaigua, the Trade and Intercourse Act and the 1985 Supreme Court Ruling. The institutional approach to public policy analysis has provided a greater understanding of some of the dynamics of the policy process. The patterns of behavior in dealing with claims of this kind are clearly observable in that the federal government seeks to right the wrongs done to minorities and the states, in this case New York, fight against the government to protect their own citizens. In conclusion it appears that both models fit the policy well and offer a greater understanding of the issues at hand. Political systems theory, although dull and predictable, helps to gain and understanding of who makes the important decisions and why these decisions are made but it lacks in the area of how the policy is made. The institutional approach is particularly affective at gaining an understanding of the guts of the policy making process but it also falls short of answering how the policy is actually created. It is interesting to see the patterns of behavior evolve, especially the apparent pattern of New York State historically not obeying federal policy decisions with regard to Indian ...
