Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Legal Issues Policy Analysis of the Oneida Land Claim Policy Analysis of the Oneida Land Claim Policy Analysis of the Oneida Land Claim Using Political Systems Theory and Institutionalism The Oneida Land Claim is an issue that reaches far into our country’s history. In recognition of support the Oneidas gave to the colonial United States during the Revolutionary war, the Oneidas were granted approximately 270,000 acres of land by, most notably, the Treaty of Canandaigua in 1794 (Haggas 1999). These lands were reserved to be their property under the agreement that the United States would never disturb them or reclaim the property given in the treaty. In 1790 the United States Congress passed the Trade and Intercourse Act which stated that the purchase of Indian lands could not concluded without congressional consent (Haggas 1999). The Treaty of Canandaigua and the Trade and Intercourse Act remain effective today and are the basis of the Oneida Land Claim. Between 1795 and 1846 the State of New York imposed 26 treaties without federal consent, taking away all but a fraction of the Oneidas ancestral homeland (Oneida Nation 1999). The last 32 acres were recovered in a suit filed by the federal government (U.S. vs. Boylan) in 1919 and was upheld in 1920 by the United States Court of Appeals (Oneida Nation 1999). The claim began in 1951 when the Oneida Nation filed a claim for the land that they lost to New York State with Indian Claims Commission. The Commission ruled that they should be compensated but it lacked authority to act on this ruling. Nineteen years later, in 1970, the Oneida nation again filed suit, this time in federal court to reclaim their lands (Oneida Nation 1999). Two lower federal courts ruled that they could not address their claims but the Supreme Court reversed these decisions in 1974 stating that the lower courts must rule on the Oneidas claims. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Oneida Nation again in 1985 affirming the Nation’s claim to 270,000 acres in Madison and Oneida counties. New York State promptly entered into negotiations with the Oneida Nation to settle its claim. In 1987 the Oneida’s recovered the first of their homelands in a 42-acre deal near the City of Oneida (Oneida Nation 1999). Since then the claim issue has been passed from one administration to another within the state government with the clear message being that the negotiations were no longer being taken seriously. Most recently, in 1998, the Oneida Nation, the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin, the Thames Band of Oneidas and the United States Department of Justice filed an amended complaint to address New York’s lack of intention to resolve through negotiation (Halbritter 1999). The amended complaint lists the defendants as New York State, Oneida and Madison Counties, selected large landowners including the New York State Thruway Authority, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Oneida Valley National Bank and private property owners within the land claim boundary (Oneida Nation 1999). The Oneidas have expanded the defendants to include these groups because New York State no longer owns much of the land and it is the only way to preserve the claim under federal law. In August of this year the New York State Assembly approved a bill that would force the State to pay any monies the Oneidas may win in litigation (Syracuse Online 1999). Talks are continuing between private citizens, Oneida and Madison county officials, state and federal governments and the Oneida Nation to come to a fair agreement on this issue. Political systems theory deals with policy analysis by characterizing the response of a political system to changes in the environment in which it operates. The political system is defined as “. . . those identifiable and interrelated institutions and activities in a society that make authoritative decisions that are binding on society (Anderson 1984).” These decisions are rendered as a result of demands made by society for action to be taken with regards to a particular problem. Its environment affects the political system by inputs in the form of demands and support. Support is recognized as compliance to the decisions and actions made as a result of the demands. The members of the political system specific to the Oneida land Claim are the United States Justice Department, the Supreme Court, New York State and the county governments of Oneida and Madison. These are the groups with authority to force coercive action that are interrelating in this area. The Oneida Nation made the demand for the return of their ancestral homelands. Originally support for this issue was missing in that New York State did not follow the 1985 ruling that the Oneidas were entitled to their land as guaranteed in the Treaty of Canandaigua. There was a further lack of support on behalf of New York State to both the Treaty of Canandaigua and the Trade and Intercourse Act. The state chose not to accept the federal governments’ decisions requiring consent for any land deals with Indians and requiring that the Oneidas were given and assured their land. As a result the Oneidas have revised their demands to indicate that they want the federal government to play a more active role, through entering into litigation and terminating negotiations with the state, in seeing that the get what is rightfully theirs. A change in the political environment has led the Oneida Nation to expand the defendants to include approximately 20,000 individual and corporate landowners. The fact that the state no longer owns the lands in question is the change in environment that has caused this action. The United States government is concerned with fair treatment of all its citizens and that making sure federal law is respected, which in this case it clearly has not. Within the political system itself there is a difference of opinion between the Supreme Court/Justice Department and the New York State Government/county governments. There are also two groups making demands upon the system. The Oneidas want their land back and the local citizens do not want to lose their homes and businesses. Missing from analysis of this kind is how these decisions are made within the political system. There is no discussion of how the decisions to give the Oneidas the land or to require federal consent in dealing with Indian lands were reached. We also do not know how the Supreme Court decisions of 1974 and 1985 were made. As a result, political systems theory is short on the blood and guts of policy making and leaves the analyst looking for more answers. The institutional approach to policy analysis again deals with the authoritative nature of policy decisions. In addition, institutionalism goes further than political systems theory in that it seeks to characterize the behavior of the institutions in the policy making process. An institution is defined as “a set of regularized patterns of human behavior that persist over time (Anderson 1984).” These patterns of behavior have a significant affect on policy and decision making in that they tend to reflect the interests of one segment of society over another. These patterns of behavior are a common thread in our political system and make up some of the blood and guts of public policy stated above. The Oneida Land Claim is an excellent issue for such a form of analysis. The government of the United States clearly has a special position with regards to Indian nations. This minority group of citizens was for many years not given the same basic rights as those of white ancestry in the United States. As a result the federal government has a special interest in seeing that the Oneida Nation, as well as other minorities, are treated fairly. The pattern of special treatment by the federal is noticeable in the creation of the Treaty of Canandaigua and especially in the passage of the Trade and Intercourse Act which prohibits anyone, including 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 land claims. Anderson, James E. 1984. Public Policy Making. New York: CBS. Haggas, Stephen W. 1999. Questions and Answers Concerning the Indian Land Claim Actions. Oneida County Department of Law. Halbritter, Ray. 1999. Letter to Neighbors in Madison and Oneida Counties. Oneida Nation. Oneida Nation. 1999. Oneida Indian Nation Land Claims: A Time Line. Oneida Nation Publications. www.oneida-nation.net. Oneida Nation. 1999. Land Claims Questions and Answers. Oneida Nation Publications. www.oneida-nation.net. Syracuse Online. 1999. Indian Land Claims. www.syracuse.com. Bibliography: Word Count: 1705
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.