현대음악 사이에 하이든의 “새” 현악 4중주 악장을 끼워넣는 독특한 방식을 취하는군요.
그리고 여기에 간 이유 중 하나가 트랜스젠더🏳️⚧️ 논바이너리 작곡가 Andrew Yee(they/them)의 곡이 연주된 것도 큰 지분을 차지합니다. Attacca Quartet의 첼리스트이자 Trans Requiem을 작곡하신 분.
www.attaccaquartet.com/about-1/
www.andrewyeecellist.com/about-me
![Nor is there any serious question that Congress has the power under the Indian Commerce Clause to enact protections against the removal of Indian children. Thankfully, Indian children are not (these days) units of commerce. But at its core, ICWA restricts how non-Indians (States and private individuals) may engage with Indians. And, as we have seen, that falls in the heartland of Congress’s constitutional authority. Recall that the very first Congresses punished non-Indians who “commit[ted] any crime upon [any] friendly Indian.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreiekfqtlfwjnoezauqlugfrtuzfpluz2lyb2urch53prxkpgdnl2f4)
![No doubt, ICWA sharply limits the ability of States to impose their own family-law policies on tribal members. But as we have seen, state intrusions on tribal authority have been a recurring theme throughout American history. [...] Long ago, those intrusions led the framers to abandon the loophole-ridden Indian affairs provision in the Articles of Confederation and adopt in the Constitution a different arrangement that commits the management of tribal relations solely to the federal government. [...] Recognizing as much, this Court has consistently reaffirmed the Tribes’ “immunity from state and local control.” If that
immunity means anything, it must mean that States and others cannot use their own laws to displace federal Indian policy.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreif357rkcr2qjs5kn4kkhuulb5qwxlqvdwhmlkc47pkmde4bgxswsu)
![In enacting ICWA, Congress affirmed this understanding. It recognized that “there is no resource that is more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian [T]ribes than their children.” Yet it also recognized that the mass-removal of Indian children by States and other outsiders
threatened the “continued existence and integrity of Indian [T]ribes.” By setting out to eliminate that practice, Congress sought to preserve the
Indian-law bargain written into the Constitution’s text by securing the continued viability of the “third sovereign.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreicohq72ubrdwpdsxcoqu7omabl2mvvcj6odsyemt3pjyhis2zsasi)
![Today, the Court takes further steps in the right direction. It recognizes that Congress’s powers with respect to the Tribes “derive from the Constitution, not the atmosphere.” [...] It engages in a robust history-driven analysis of the various fonts of congressional authority without relying only on platitudes about plenary power. It notes that, as an original matter, the Indian Commerce Clause is “broad” and covers more than garden-variety commercial activity. In the process, it reaffirms that “ ‘commerce with the Indian [T]ribes’ ” necessarily covers commerce with “Indians as individuals.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreieioe7z65vtb6cy4lcg3tgkdqermazoya4skermknqne2lv6db2uy)
![Instead, the plenary-power idea “constituted an unprincipled assertion of raw federal authority.”
[...] During what has been called the “high plenary power era of U. S. Indian law,” this Court sometimes took the word “plenary” pretty literally. [...] It assumed that Congress possesses a “virtually unlimited
authority to regulate [T]ribes” in every respect. [...] Perhaps most notably, the Court even suggested that Congress’s “plenary authority” might allow it to “limit, modify, or eliminate the powers of local self-government which the [T]ribes otherwise possess.” [...] It is an “inconceivable” suggestion for anyone who takes the Constitution’s original meaning seriously.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreieaf2dkm4dthdktuvm7mnginv7q7r2sqjtlycar6z5kf6cqszjyki)
![It is no coincidence either that this Court’s plenary-power jurisprudence emerged in the same era as Indian boarding schools and other assimilationist policies. [...] Indian boarding schools and other intrusive “federal educational programs . . . could not have been implemented without federal control of reservation governance.” [...] Nor could any of these federal intrusions on internal tribal affairs have been possible without this Court’s plenary-power misadventure.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreicq67iwftrarjxerakrcw4inckqwee6nri7ddenbg5lkbih5ztdnq)
![Instead of examining the text and history of the Indian Commerce Clause, the Court offered a free-floating and purposivist account of the Constitution, describing it as extending broad “power [to] the General
Government” over tribal affairs. [...] Building on that move, the Court would later come to describe the federal power over the Tribes as “plenary.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreicgqzdcj4rlp5j7fmb53ymdz6b5e5i6cjtns3ab5q7ohwwnmervkq)
![In that way, the Indian Commerce Clause confirms, rather than abridges, principles of tribal sovereignty. As it must. It is “inconceivable” that a power to regulate non-Indians’ dealings with Indians could be used to “dives[t Tribes] of the right of self-government.” [...] Otherwise, a power to manage relations with a party would become an instrument for “annihilating the political existence of one of the parties.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreidqdheufglau73bganw2bbwmpbxm6opqvrh52sejobab42u6d6xg4)
![Giving the Indian Commerce Clause its most natural reading, the Court concluded that the power to regulate commerce with Indian Tribes must
mean the power to regulate “commerce with the individuals composing those [T]ribes.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreiefb5eaabdqcareuuolenurxulq6nxskt6zuqbu56vkhhdulqtlsm)
![Instead, the word was used as a “term of art,” Pearl 322, to encompass all manner of “bilateral relations with the [T]ribes,”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreiaer3xppainepfic3mh5cq6harojos5gmwsx3n2pzyvjflyhsl344)
![[T]he Constitution afforded the federal government the power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” §8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). Much of modern federal Indian law rests on that commerce power. It demands a closer look.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreidrvvsu73zzks2z2tan45liatt552hmuhsqwc32od2vwgqmep4jom)
![For its part, this Court understood the absence of state authority over tribal matters as a natural corollary of Tribes’ inherent sovereignty. Precisely because Tribes exist as a “distinct community,” this Court concluded in Worcester, the “laws of [States] can have no force” as to them.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreibaht3oihq2qm5o3huvmppiipybxs5a4pl3hzwyf3pic65kyh5l5i)
![The final version assigned the newly formed federal government a bundle of powers that encompassed “all that is required for the regulation of [the Nation’s] intercourse with the Indians.” [...] By contrast, the Constitution came with no indication that States had any similar sort of power. Indeed, it omitted the nettlesome language in the Articles about the “legislative right” of States. [...]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreidn5munonqkunnatctpgijpxpt4udq5rvb2nhp2yykqrplcp3dige)
![As this Court has consistently recognized, “[t]he policy of leaving Indians free from state jurisdiction and control is deeply rooted in the Nation’s history.” [...] Instead, responsibility for managing interactions with the Tribes rests exclusively with the federal government. To appreciate this point, walk through time once more.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreiazyyzaze2c2sy2y5xjq52g2dhmf6tlkysol7a3ub62a72o26faim)
![The Cherokee, like other Tribes, remained “a distinct community occupying its own territory . . . in which the laws of [the State] can have no force, and which the citizens of [that State] have no right to enter, but with the assent of the [Tribe] themselves, or in conformity with treaties, and with the acts of [C]ongress.” Justice McLean, concurring, put it succinctly: “All the rights which belong to self-government have been recognized as vested in [the Tribes].”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreifv4hx3b2rq5z5t6mpmd5qhioskj4ov5d7crtykxoujwvfzkcoc4i)
![ICWA is not a panacea. While “[a]dopting ICWA marked one step toward upholding tribal rights,” “many [S]tates” have struggled with “effective implementation.” Others resist ICWA outright, as the present litigation by Texas attests.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreif42i2hyxtf6fksixa5wg4wrbiin4jgnrrvayzj2kdsaeubmyheom)
![And considerable research “[s]ubsequent to Congress’s enactment of
ICWA” has “borne out the statute’s basic premise”—that “[i]t is generally in the best interests of Indian children to be raised in Indian homes.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreifgxfuhmp7gucbcatrxf5dud3r3m3pw235am5hfnmudhkuyfmfeca)
![Aggravating matters, these separations were frequently “carried out without due process of law.” [...] After all the Tribes had suffered at the government’s hands, many parents simply believed they had no power to resist. One interviewed mother “wept that she did not dare protest
the taking of her children for fear of going to jail.” For those Indian parents who did resist, “simple abduction” remained an option. Parents were, for instance, sometimes tricked into signing forms that they believed authorized only a brief removal of their children. Only later would they discover that the forms purported to surrender full custody. [...] Many prents came to "feel hopeless, powerless, and unworthy"—further feeding the cycle of removal. [...] "As one study warned: “[E]fforts to make Indian children ‘white,’ ” by removing them from their Tribes, “can destroy them.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreihrlg4ccqerjnxtskkksn6chziwxyfzytytmzyymnj2pxi6robmwa)
![Surveys conducted in 1969 and 1974 showed that “approximately
25–35 per cent of all Indian children [were] separated from
their families.” [...] Often, these removals whisked children not only out of their families but out of their communities. Some estimate that “more than 90 per cent of non-related adoptions of Indian children [were]
made by non-Indian couples.”
These family separations frequently lacked justification. According to one report, only about “1 per cent” of the separations studied involved alleged physical abuse. The other 99 percent? “[V]ague grounds” such “as ‘neglect’ or ‘social deprivation.’ ” These determinations, often “wholly inappropriate in the context of Indian family life,” came mainly from non-Indian social workers, many of whom were “ignorant of Indian cultural values and social norms.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreih4gonyxiuv6zx2ol7wxmgftjoa7kqgiytbomxgpok4htqhzjtxve)
![They could “save . . . money” by “promoting the adoption of Indian children by private families.” [...]
This restarted a now-familiar nightmare for Indian fam-
ilies. The same assimilationist rhetoric previously invoked
by the federal government persisted, “voiced this time by
state and county officials.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreicjzguwi2p4crwgtlrlppkvvfmkjuupwp67c7lylnqzs6d6heic5a)
![Adding insult to injury, the United States stuck Tribes with a bill for these programs. At points, as much as 95% of the funding for Indian boarding schools came from “Indian trust fund monies” raised by selling Indian land. [...] To subsidize operations further, the boarding schools frequently required children not even 12 years old to work on the grounds. [...] Some rationalized this experience as a benefit to the children. [...] But in candor, Indian boarding schools “could not possibly be maintained . . . were it not for the fact that students [were] required to do . . . an amount of labor that ha[d] in the aggregate a very appreciable monetary value.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreihb35oxdydoecmf77haz6h23fblnemtroopp3eywdibaoqyrvfzou)
![Unsurprisingly, “[m]any Indian families resisted” the federal government’s boarding school initiative and “refus[ed] to send their children.” [...] But Congress would not be denied. It authorized the Secretary of the Interior to “prevent the issuing of rations or the furnishing of subsistence” to Indian families who would not surrender their children. [...] When economic coercion failed, officials sometimes resorted to abduction.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreia5va7vu5w2niu4wy5gb552eswlwrlbnlpttcbkfqeioxctxszode)
![Upon the children’s arrival, the boarding schools would often seek to strip them of nearly every aspect of their identity. [...] After intake, the schools frequently prohibited children from speaking their native language or engaging in customary cultural or religious practices. [...] Nor could children freely associate with members of their own Tribe. Schools would organize dorms by the “[s]ize of cadets, and not their tribal relations,” so as to further “br[eak] up tribal associations.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreidgrco5roj2i6szjb3sosrvte52wi32rlt7lt3qqfe72m3pr4grm4)
!["At those day schools, “Indian children would learn English as a second
language,” along with “math and science.” [...] But the children lived at home with their families where they could continue to learn and practice “their languages, beliefs, and traditional knowledge.”"](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreibp2bjcmf2qq4ezveb2zqiq5awmtgetr2suoonahdkd63enolg6rm)
![The federal government had darker designs. By the late 1870s, its goals turned toward destroying tribal identity and assimilating Indians into broader society. [...] Achieving those goals, officials reasoned, required the “complete isolation of the Indian child from his savage antecedents.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreicgbaeiragc3cmm5l6q4x2auw5yegr4pbigtov2cdokaysfqfqrc4)
![And because “the warm reciprocal affection existing between parents
and children” was “among the strongest characteristics of the Indian nature,” officials set out to eliminate it by dissolving Indian families. [...]
Thus began Indian boarding schools. In 1879, the Carlisle Indian Industrial School opened its doors at the site of an old military base in central Pennsylvania. Carlisle’s head, then-Captain Richard Henry Pratt, summarized the school’s mission this way: “[A]ll the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreignmdwyl6qaiz63u5c7hg2hy56cwu6zfydnlmqgqdpfpjo5hhde3q)
![Perplexity article on Cuba
“Cuba nears collapse as U.S. oil embargo cuts off nearly all fuel imports”
- Cuba has received no crude oil shipments since January, according to S&P Global [SPGI +0.19%], after U.S. actions cut off supplies from Venezuela and Mexico.
- Trump signed an executive order threatening tariffs on any nation supplying oil to Cuba, prompting Mexico to halt deliveries under pressure.
- The UN condemned the embargo as a violation of international law, while analysts warn Cuba’s remaining fuel reserves may last fewer than 20 days.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:z3djit5u64gjgr6fbnyiabix/bafkreictx7vzbxpcov7ifwurgwzwzk3vyb34ansmjtq6odm7ia265azchi)
