comment: >
  
  The main issue is that it's not really clear which Cherokee group should be the one to decide who is sent to Congress. And we can't just do something like giving the multiple different groups each their own delegate - or at least, that would probably require changing the treaty by law or something, which we likely wouldn't see with the GOP in control in the house and being able to filibuster in the Senate
context: Not if republicans have anything to say about it >
  
  So you think these 188 years are purely the fault of republicans ? >
  
  They weren’t called that all that time, but yes. >
  
  So why didn’t the democrats allow this when they controlled the house during the previous congress? >
  
  Narrator: Under no circumstances will Republicans allow this. >
  
  My understanding is this is a non-voting seat. Republicans can take the W on this with no cost to their majority. >
  
  Even at no cost I doubt they’ll support giving a minority a voice. They’ll find some bullshit reason to justify it. >
  
  "It's not what the founding fathers would have wanted." >
  
  Honestly, the only time they may be right when they say that… >
  
  A separate article on this was posted yesterday on the IndianCountry subreddit.  The above link goes to the native people's comments there. >
  
  How will Republicans not make this happen? >
  
  1) say no
  2) if anyone challenges them, see step 1 >
  
  It's about time. Then hopefully some of the other recognized nations can get some representation >
  
  About damn time wtf. American Indians have a badass and rich history. They need some representation! >
  
  This is for a non-voting seat, like Puerto Rico