Page:Haaland v. Brackeen.pdf/103

Rh 1803), reprinted in id., at 684. See also Statement of T. Jefferson to Congress (Jan. 18, 1803), reprinted in 4 American State Papers 684–685 (Officers may “have conferences with the natives, on the subject of commercial intercourse; get admission among them for our traders, as others are admitted; [and] agree on convenient deposites, for an interchange of articles … ”); Statement of T. Jefferson to Congress (Jan. 28, 1802), reprinted in id., at 653 (“I lay before you the accounts of our Indian trading houses … explaining the effects and the situation of that commerce … ”); Statement of S. Sibley et al. to Congress (Dec. 27, 1811), reprinted in id., at 780–782 (in the Northwest Territory, formerly “[t]here was trade and commercial intercourse; no agriculture,” but “[a]t present, the little commerce which remains is sufficiently safe. It is agricultural protection which is wanted”); Letter from J. Mason to W. Eustis (Jan. 16, 1812), reprinted in id., at 782–784 (“[P]eltries (deer skins) are in most part received from the Indians …. The market is on the continent of Europe. Since the obstructions to our commerce in that quarter, peltries have not only experienced a depression in price…”); Protest by J. Hendricks, J. Jackson, & J. Simms (June 28, 1796), reprinted in id., at 613–614 (“No citizen is to be permitted to sell, or furnish by gift, spirituous liquors to the Indians, or to have any commercial traffic with them”); see also Natelson 214–215. Even one Founder who appears to have used the term more loosely (in the context of an opinion on the constitutionality of a national bank) focused only on trade and immigration restrictions. Letter from E. Randolph to G. Washington (Feb. 12, 1791), in 7 Papers of George Washington: Presidential Series 330, 334–335 (D. Twohig ed. 1998) (“The heads of [the commerce] power with respect to the Indian Tribes are 1. to prohibit the Indians from coming into, or trading within, the United States. 2. to admit them with or without restrictions. 3. to prohibit citizens of the United States from trading with them; or 4. to permit with or without restrictions”). All of this makes sense, given that the Founders both wanted to facilitate trade with Indians and rejected a facially broader “Indian affairs” power in favor of a narrower power over “Commerce … with the Indian Tribes.”

As noted above, that omission was not accidental; the Articles of Confederation had contained that “Indian affairs” language, and that language was twice proposed (and rejected) at the Constitutional Convention. See Adoptive Couple, 570 U. S., at 662. Then, as today, “affairs” was a