I wonder if justice would have been done if Marshal or his 1823 ruling had not existed. I tend to think other ways would have been found to 'go w[r]est.' The rush for 'white gold' (lithium) is also driven by an unsophisticated TINA (There Is No Alternative) principle, it seems to me - environment be damned (unless it can be commodified/weaponized to serve various and nefarious globalist plans - which amounts to mining and digital plantation building 401, right? - and as always, exploiters great and small are often those who wallow in the belief that freedom means to be rid of ancestors, offspring, or land - and who feel entitled to lord it over everybody and everything.
It's vitally important to study and understand and see through systems of domination and their many offshoots, that underpin (or tacitly condone) those behaviours. Thank you, Peter and Steven (2x, Schwarzberg & Newcomb) for all the work you do to enlighten us.
There can be no justice as long as any part of a ruling over Native peoples is based on the US ruling over Native peoples. Marshal wrote of the “extravagant pretension” of equating discovery with conquest. At the end of the day THIS is the specific problem with John Marshal’s codification of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery into US law. Discovery is NOT conquest even if you subscribe to this barbaric notion of forfeiture by conquest.
Exactly. And even Marshall realized that “conquest” had never taken place. His claim that “the sword” was involved rather than purchase by treaty was a knowing deceit on his part--a false and malicious vision of the past that became a description of the genocidal crimes that his would-be “legal fiction” (really a treaty-violating fantasy) would sanction. The Trail of Tears and the “Indian Wars” that followed in the wake of Marshall’s dishonesty would never have taken place if he had adhered to constitutional law and the law of nations as these were understood by the framers and followed the clear meaning of the text.
I like those precise descriptions, Steven S (and John Kane) - the more so while I am a layperson when it comes to the 'extravagant' trickeries of genocidal legislature.
Part of the problem is that in seeking a scrap of justice far too many people buy into a part of federal anti-Indian law in an effort to wring something from an unjust and unconstitutional system. Hence McGirt’s underlying appeal to Kagama which meant implicitly accepting Congressional plenary power over “major crimes” because it accepted the “right” of Congress to declare federal jurisdiction and cease relying on treaties; to “govern them” by acts of Congress instead—implying that these treaties were not signed in good faith with independent sovereign nations but rather were a form of deception. The Constitution declares treaties the “Supreme Law of the Land” but ever since Johnson v. McIntosh in 1823 the Supreme Court has treated them as largely superfluous lies that the Congress and the courts can break if they wish. It’s excuse has been rooted in the doctrine of Christian discovery, but the rank dishonesty and illegality is evident to those who take the Constitution’s text and the intentions of the framers seriously.
I wonder if justice would have been done if Marshal or his 1823 ruling had not existed. I tend to think other ways would have been found to 'go w[r]est.' The rush for 'white gold' (lithium) is also driven by an unsophisticated TINA (There Is No Alternative) principle, it seems to me - environment be damned (unless it can be commodified/weaponized to serve various and nefarious globalist plans - which amounts to mining and digital plantation building 401, right? - and as always, exploiters great and small are often those who wallow in the belief that freedom means to be rid of ancestors, offspring, or land - and who feel entitled to lord it over everybody and everything.
It's vitally important to study and understand and see through systems of domination and their many offshoots, that underpin (or tacitly condone) those behaviours. Thank you, Peter and Steven (2x, Schwarzberg & Newcomb) for all the work you do to enlighten us.
Pim - "go w[r]est..." brilliant...
Thank you, Peter. Sometimes walking a fine line between wisdom and foolery is pure joy.
And I look forward to reading your anti-federal indian law study, which I just now ordered at my local bookstore.
There can be no justice as long as any part of a ruling over Native peoples is based on the US ruling over Native peoples. Marshal wrote of the “extravagant pretension” of equating discovery with conquest. At the end of the day THIS is the specific problem with John Marshal’s codification of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery into US law. Discovery is NOT conquest even if you subscribe to this barbaric notion of forfeiture by conquest.
Exactly. And even Marshall realized that “conquest” had never taken place. His claim that “the sword” was involved rather than purchase by treaty was a knowing deceit on his part--a false and malicious vision of the past that became a description of the genocidal crimes that his would-be “legal fiction” (really a treaty-violating fantasy) would sanction. The Trail of Tears and the “Indian Wars” that followed in the wake of Marshall’s dishonesty would never have taken place if he had adhered to constitutional law and the law of nations as these were understood by the framers and followed the clear meaning of the text.
I like those precise descriptions, Steven S (and John Kane) - the more so while I am a layperson when it comes to the 'extravagant' trickeries of genocidal legislature.
Hopefully I am not too slow a learner.
Part of the problem is that in seeking a scrap of justice far too many people buy into a part of federal anti-Indian law in an effort to wring something from an unjust and unconstitutional system. Hence McGirt’s underlying appeal to Kagama which meant implicitly accepting Congressional plenary power over “major crimes” because it accepted the “right” of Congress to declare federal jurisdiction and cease relying on treaties; to “govern them” by acts of Congress instead—implying that these treaties were not signed in good faith with independent sovereign nations but rather were a form of deception. The Constitution declares treaties the “Supreme Law of the Land” but ever since Johnson v. McIntosh in 1823 the Supreme Court has treated them as largely superfluous lies that the Congress and the courts can break if they wish. It’s excuse has been rooted in the doctrine of Christian discovery, but the rank dishonesty and illegality is evident to those who take the Constitution’s text and the intentions of the framers seriously.