1964

Peyote Effect ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 103-120
Author(s):  
Alexander S. Dawson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Native American ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Native American Church ◽  
Bona Fide ◽  
Federal Laws ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
The U.S

As the United States moved toward a ban on peyote during the 1960s, the courts were forced to confront the First Amendment claims of Native American peyotists. This chapter explores the deployment of the concept of “bona fide” religious belief, which became the means through which an exemption for Native American peyotists was enshrined in U.S. law. The courts attempted to measure this through a series of metrics: whether or not other drugs were used, whether or not ceremonies took place within a formally organized church, and the extent to which these practices could be said to be traditional. More troubling was the fact that the courts and later the U.S. government relied on race as a basis for evaluating these claims, particularly after the Native American Church exemption was enshrined in federal laws that made peyote a schedule-one drug. Federal law made exceptions for the Native American Church only so long as those enjoying the exemption were also at least one-quarter Indian by blood. We see here, then, the role that the state’s obsession with race played in ensuring that Native American Church chapters became exclusively indigenous churches, reshaping the Native American Church in the process.

1917

Peyote Effect ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 44-54
Author(s):  
Alexander S. Dawson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Native American ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
The United States ◽  
Late Nineteenth Century ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Late Nineteenth ◽  
Indian Agents ◽  
The U.S

This chapter explores the first sustained efforts to enact a federal ban on peyote in the United States. Missionaries and Indian Agents began pressing for a ban in the late nineteenth century, only to be thwarted by Native American peyotists and their allies in the Bureau of American Ethnology, who argued both that peyote worship should be protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and that it was not deleterious to the health of individual peyotists. By 1917, however, state governments were beginning to pass local bans, with the first prohibitions passed in Colorado and Utah. In early 1918, the U.S. House of Representatives took up the cause, holding hearings on a proposed ban. The record of those hearings offers a fascinating glimpse into the ways that racial anxieties were articulated through anxieties over peyotism in the early twentieth century. The ban passed the House but failed in the Senate.

1918

Peyote Effect ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 55-62
Author(s):  
Alexander S. Dawson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Native American ◽  
Political Activism ◽  
The United States ◽  
Native American Church ◽  
History Of ◽  
Constitutional Protections ◽  
The U.S

Chastened by how close a national ban of peyote came to passing in early 1918, the following October a group of Native American peyotists gathered in El Reno, Oklahoma, in order to found the Native American Church. This chapter explores this remarkable moment of political activism, along with the histories of peyotism in the United States that led to this initiative. The deep history of peyotism north of the border remains somewhat unclear, though we can be certain that the individuals who came together in 1918 to found a church that could, in turn, enjoy constitutional protections were participants in practices that had consolidated in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Their efforts to create an institutionalized church that would be legible to the U.S. government did not immediately bear fruit, as anti-peyotists dominated the Bureau of Indians Affairs (BIA) through the 1920s, though these efforts did begin to see significant success after John Collier became chief of the BIA in 1933.

Not Imprisonment in a Legal Sense

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly Lytle Hernández
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Los Angeles ◽  
Civil Disobedience ◽  
Chinese Immigrants ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
History Of ◽  
Immigrant Detention ◽  
One Year ◽  
The U.S

The third chapter is a western tale of national and global import. That tale, which sutures the split between the history of incarceration within the United States and the history of deportation from the United States, swirls around the passage of the 1892 Geary Act, a federal law that required all Chinese laborers in the United States to prove their legal residence and register with the federal government or be subject to up to one year of imprisonment at hard labor and, then, deportation. Chinese immigrants rebelled against the new law, refusing to be locked out, kicked out, or singled out for imprisonment. Launching the first mass civil disobedience campaign for immigrant rights in the history of the United States, Chinese immigrants forced the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a set of sweeping and enduring decisions regarding the future of U.S. immigration control. Buried in those decisions, which cut through Los Angeles during the summer of 1893, lay the invention of immigrant detention as a nonpunitive form of caging noncitizens within the United States. It was then an obscure and contested practice of indisputably racist origins. It is now one of the most dynamic sectors of the U.S. carceral landscape.

Toward Delinking: An Alternative Chinese Path Amid the New Cold War

2020 ◽  
pp. 15-31
Author(s):  
Sit Tsui ◽  
Erebus Wong ◽  
Lau Kin Chi ◽  
Wen Tiejun
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Foreign Capital ◽  
The United States ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Way

During the 1960s, China was effectively excluded from the two major camps: the Soviet camp and the U.S. camp. For about a decade, China was obliged to seek development within its own borders and thereby achieved some extent of delinking: a refusal to succumb to U.S.-eurocentric globalization and an embrace of a people's agenda of development. While foreign relations were later normalized and China once again brought in foreign capital, since being explicitly targeted as the primary rival of the United States, however, the situation may again warrant moves toward delinking and searching for alternatives, with ups and downs along the way.

scholarly journals Reflexiones sobre la expansión y legalidad del campo peyotero en México

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Mauricio Genet Guzmán ◽  
Beatriz Labate
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Native American ◽  
Drug Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Native American Church ◽  
Religious Associations ◽  
Mexican Government

This paper presents a reflection on the implications of the use and trade of peyote (Lophophora williamsii) and the challenges associated with its conservation in a religious and binational (Mexico and the United States) context. Our main focus is on a controversy raised by the Native American Church before the Mexican government, via an application submitted to the General Directorate of Religious Associations of the Secretariat of the Interior, demanding the registration of organizations that use the cactus in their rituals. This case is unique because it represents a paradigmatic illustration of the drug policy and religious rights frameworks currently in place in Mexico.

scholarly journals Elonis v. United States: The Doctrine of True Threats: Protecting Our Ever-Shrinking First Amendment Rights in the New Era of Communication

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-223
Author(s):  
Mary Margaret Roark
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
New Era ◽  
The Public ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The U.S

The First Amendment protects one of our most precious rights as citizens of the United States—the freedom of speech. Such protection has withstood the test of time, even safeguarding speech that much of the population would find distasteful. There is one form of speech which cannot be protected: the true threat. However, the definition of what constitutes a "true threat" has expanded since its inception. In the new era of communication—where most users post first and edit later—the First Amendment protection we once possessed has been eroded as more and more speech is considered proscribable as a "true threat." In order to adequately protect both the public at large and our individual right to free speech, courts should analyze a speaker’s subjective intent before labeling speech a "true threat." Though many courts have adopted an objective, reasonable listener test, the U.S. Supreme Court now has the opportunity, in deciding Elonis v. United States, to take a monumental step in protecting the First Amendment right to free speech. By holding that the speaker’s subjective intent to threaten is necessary for a true threat conviction, the Court will restore the broad protection afforded by the First Amendment and repair years of erosion caused by an objective approach.

scholarly journals An Empirical Look at U.S. Treaty Practice: Some Preliminary Conclusions

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 57-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cindy Galway Buys
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Preliminary Data ◽  
The United States ◽  
Downward Trend ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Multilateral Treaties

The title of this Agora and the first question it poses both ask whether treaties are in decline. With respect to multilateral treaties to which the United States is a party, the answer is a clear yes.According to the U.S. State Department’s Treaties in Force database, the United States became a party to a record number of 105 multilateral treaties between 1990 and 1999. As set forth in Graph A below, during the period 2000–2009, the number of multilateral treaties the United States joined dropped to just 62, the lowest number since the 1960s. The preliminary data from the first part of this decade beginning in 2010 suggests that this downward trend continues, but it is still too early in the decade to draw any definitive conclusions.

Cases Without Controversies

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
James E. Pfander
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Antebellum America ◽  
Article Iii Courts ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Over Time

Cases Without Controversies: Uncontested Adjudication in Article III Courts offers a new account of the power of federal courts in the United States to hear and determine uncontested applications to assert or register a claim of right. Familiar to lawyers in civil law countries as forms of voluntary or non-contentious jurisdiction, these uncontested applications fit uneasily with the commitment to adversary legalism in the United States. Indeed, modern accounts of federal judicial power often urge that the language of Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits federal courts to the adjudication of concrete disputes between adverse parties and rules out all forms of non-contentious jurisdiction. Said to rest on the so-called “case-or-controversy” requirement of Article III, this requirement of party contestation threatens the power of federal courts to conduct a range of familiar proceedings, such as the oversight of bankruptcy proceedings, the issuance of warrants, and the adjudication of applications for mandamus and habeas corpus relief. By recounting the tradition of naturalization and other uncontested litigation in antebellum America and coupling that tradition with an account of the important difference between cases and controversies, this book challenges the prevailing understanding of Article III. In addition to defending the power of federal courts to hear uncontested matters of federal law, this book examines the way the Constitution’s meaning has changed over time and suggests an interpretive methodology that would allow the U.S. Supreme Court to take account of the old and the new in defining the contours of federal judicial power.

Point Four, Utah State University Technicians, and Rural Development in Iran, 1950–64

Rural History ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
JESSIE EMBRY
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Rural Development ◽  
Third World ◽  
The United States ◽  
Soviet Bloc ◽  
State University ◽  
Utah State University ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Point Four Program ◽  
The U.S

In 1950 Iran and the United States signed the first Point Four agreement, establishing a program now known as USAID. It fulfilled President Harry S. Truman's desire to control the Soviet bloc and to share technology with third world countries. Utah State University contracted with the U.S. Point Four program to provide technicians in agriculture from 1951 to 1954. This paper examines the successes and the frustrations that the Utahns felt in transporting technology to Iran. While there were some successes, the cultural and economic difficulties were hard to overcome. As a result, the technicians in the 1960s experienced the same problems faced by those in the 1950s. These included a negative reaction to farm machinery in a land with many laborers, problems training machinery operators, and language barriers.

Briefly Noted

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 1054-1055
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Native American ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
District Court ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
The U.S

On August 23, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Mitchell v. U.S., denying a certificate of appealability to the petitioner who sought a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence of death. The petitioner, Lezmond Mitchell, argued that his conviction and sentence must be vacated in light of an August 12, 2020, report by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that concluded that Mr. Mitchell's trial and sentence were a violation of his rights under the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man. Mr. Mitchell, the only Native American on federal death row, argued that the IACHR report created rights binding on the U.S. “‘(1) because they are derived directly from the OAS Charter, a treaty within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution; and (2) because they are derived, through the OAS Charter, from the American Declaration, a statement of human rights norms the United States has not only adopted, but helped to draft.’” The Ninth Circuit concluded that Mr. Mitchell's motion to vacate “did not make ‘a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right’” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) and denied his motion. In its reasoning, the Court explained that “reasonable jurists would not find debatable the district court's conclusion that the IACHR's decision is not binding in federal court.” It agreed with the District Court's conclusion that IACHR rulings are not binding on the U.S. because the OAS Charter is “not self-executing” and there is no U.S. statute which implements it. Moreover, the District Court correctly determined that because the American Declaration is not a treaty, it creates no binding legal obligations, nor does the “IACHR's governing statute, the Statute of Inter-American Commission on Human Rights . . . give the IACHR power to make binding rulings with respect to nations, like the United States, that have not ratified the American Convention.” The Ninth Circuit thus joins the other federal courts of appeals that have addressed this issue by concluding that neither the American Declaration, nor the IACHR's recommendations related thereto, is a source of binding obligations for the United States under international law. Cf. Cardenas v. Stephens, 820 F.3d 197, 203 (5th Cir. 2016); Tamayo v. Stephens, 740 F.3d 991, 997–98 (5th Cir. 2014); Flores-Nova v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 652 F.3d 488, 493 (3d Cir. 2011); Igartua v. United States, 626 F.3d 592, 603 n. 11 (1st Cir. 2010); In re Hicks, 375 F.3d 1237, 1241 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2004); Garza v. Lappin, 253 F.3d 918, 925 (7th Cir. 2001); Roach v. Aiken, 781 F.2d 379, 381 (4th Cir. 1986).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document