comment: >
  
  GOP controls the House (THANKS AMERICA) so not going to happen in the next 2 years at the very least.
  The Cherokee Nation should have proposed this a few years earlier.
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 >
  
  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 >
  
  Teehee is already nominated by the Cherokee Nation >
  
  But that's not the only group of Cherokees. There's also the "United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians", and the "Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians". There's three different Cherokee tribes. 
  There may be some confusion with the name Cherokee Nation here. The Treaty of New Echota was made between the US government and "the Cherokee Nation". But that was the united Cherokee Nation which was abolished as an entity by the government around 1900. The modern "Cherokee Nation" is a later institutional creation which does not consist of all Cherokees or even all Cherokee tribal institutions (hence the United Keetoowah Band and the Eastern Band existing as their own separate things). Since New Echota was between the US and the Cherokee in general as a united people, it doesn't necessarily legally make sense to assume that the modern creation of the Cherokee Nation inherits the seat as opposed to the broader Cherokee people in general which would be inclusive of the other two tribes too >
  
  Maybe the seat can be rotational on fixed times....I mean does the treaty say how the representative has to be chosen? So it is probably up to the Cherokee how to fill it...of course can be complicated...