Reserved Rights

Reserved Rights

Reserved rights doctrine contains various clauses with legal frameworks guiding the operations under distinct facets of life. The constitution formulates diverse legal articulations to ensure that citizens are protected against breaches of their reserved rights. Legal practitioners, such as judges, prosecutors, and lawyers, are guided by such legal frameworks when making legal presentations or rulings associated with citizens’ reserved rights. The reserved rights doctrine formulates diverse legal articulations to influence the activities taking place in the federal water and fisheries among other sectors. The paper looks into some of the considerations by legal practitioners when formulating decisions on matters about the citizens’ reserved rights.

Michigans enjoy the rights to fish and hunt as fundamental exclusive rights resulting from several treaties made between the federal government and the specific tribes (Anderson 187). Such agreements aimed at responding to the question of citizen’s rights concerning such economic activities. The federal government adopted the treaties as one of the necessary measures towards easing the tensions that resulted from the continued involvement in such actions by the citizens. The fact that hunting and fishing acted as the main economic activities for the native tribes influenced the decision by the federal to rethink the legal frameworks and ensure that citizen’s rights were reserved. Easing access to wildlife and fish, therefore, acted as an essential move to empower the tribes economically. Besides, the government remained sensitive to the ecosystem, thus dictating the decision to come off robust legal frameworks to ensure a mutual benefit. The reserved rights are substantial when individuals don’t breach the legal frameworks guiding fishing in the state.

Legal practitioners dealing with such cases should consider some of the necessary legal frameworks to convince the court that their decisions are strong as opposed to others (Radin 37-76).  They need to have legal arguments to counter the controversy surrounding the fishing and hunting rights and influence the jury to make a ruling in their favor. Presenting legal annotations to support the case is one of the basic moves which can convince the jury when deciding on a matter touching on hunting or fishing (Minow 155-210). Besides, legal documents associated with land or river/stream ownership are essential in influencing the decisions adopted by legal practitioners dealing with a case of fishing. The judges consider the evidence presented by the defender that the offender respected the legal frameworks on fishing when making their ruling. Besides, the legal counsel should convince the jury beyond reasonable doubts that the accused person did not negate the legal frameworks on fishing to have the case ruled in their favor.

In summary, the realization that fishing and hunting were critical as far as the economic performance of the native tribes is concerned influenced by the federal government to rethink their legal frameworks. The federal government appreciated the need to empower its citizens economically but also needed to maintain bio-diversity. Such considerations influenced the federal government to formulate operational decisions to guide fishing and hunting and ensure a mutual benefit. Legal practitioners, such as judges and lawyers, consider such legal frameworks when dealing with a case on fishing. The success of a defense counsel in convincing the jury depends on the ability to evidence that the accused person respected the legal frameworks guiding fishing in the state. The decision by the jury is fully considerate of the legal frameworks and treaties governing hunting and fishing.

Works Cited

Anderson, Robert T. “Sovereignty and Subsistence: Native Self-Government and Rights to Hunt, Fish, and Gather After ANCSA.” Alaska L. Rev. 33 (2016): 187.

Minow, Martha. “Interpreting rights: an essay for Robert Cover.” Theoretical and Empirical Studies of Rights. Routledge, 2017. 155-210.

Radin, Margaret Jane. “Reconsidering the rule of law.” The Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers. Routledge, 2017. 37-76.