Indians treaties are almost never Treaties under the Constitution, those require ratification by the Senate, and are with foreign nations. The US has taken the position- recognized by every court- that the Indian tribes are like states- they have limited sovereignty- but they are totally subject to Federal laws. The “treaties” with tribes are agreements, not treaties.
No, you can do exactly what the Sioux did- sue. And SCOTUS agreed- $10 isnt enuf, they offer you FMV.
"The issue was whether the Sioux had already received just compensation for their land, and the Court affirmed the Claims Court’s decision that they never had…The Court recognized a tension between Congress’s duty to serve as a benevolent trustee for Indians, and the power to take their land…) “Congress can own two hats, but it cannot wear them both at the same time,” said the opinion…While reaffirming earlier decisions that Congress has “paramount authority over the property of the Indians,” the Court concluded that Congress acts properly only if it “makes a good faith effort to give the Indians the full value of the land,” which here it had failed to do… In conclusion the Supreme Court ordered “just compensation to the Sioux Nation, and that obligation, including an award of interest, must now, at last, be paid.”…
No, in fact they were not.
They kinda have the power to get every law right, no matter what the rest of us think.
If you mean we have to follow their rulings then sure.
If you mean you can defend Dredd Scott v. Sanford or Buck v. Bell or Plessy v. Ferguson or (if you want more recent ones) Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission or Kelo v. City of New London then go for it.
Hell…most supreme court cases have a dissent so even the judges on the court can disagree on what the law is.
You’re confusing two different issues. There’s the issue of what the law is and there’s the issue of whether a law is good or bad.
All of the Supreme Court cases you mentioned defined what the law is.
No one can tell the President of the United States that he can’t go on Federal property anywhere in the country. The court ordered a remedy for the Sioux having been deprived of the fair value of their land; they didn’t like the remedy and refused to accept payment. That’s up to them. But they may not now deny anyone permission to enter a national park.
“We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” - Associate Justice Robert Jackson
That the Supreme Court got the law wrong therefore I don’t have to follow their rulings is an argument so weak it couldn’t hold up a butterfly’s dandruff.
Good thing I never made that argument then.
If congress passes a law that builds an airport on some land which Little Nemo later proves was his, the courts may decide that he deserves $10 in compensation or $10 million in compensation, but they are unlikely to demand that the airport be torn down, or give control of it over to Nemo.
Because the government gets to write its own rules.
If I built an out-house on Little_Nemo’s property I am willing to bet he gets control of it and can tear it down (and charge me the cost to do so) rather than a court telling him to take the $10 I offered him and leave it.
This is not entirely true - “adverse possession” doctrine means that if you build an outhouse on Little Nemo’s property and keep using it openly for a period of time (usually 7-20 years) and he doesn’t contest it, it either becomes your property or you retain the right to keep the outhouse there and keep using it indefinitely.
Well, what is your argument?
That the Supreme Court sometimes makes decisions that people don’t like but they’re still valid laws? Yes, nobody would argue against that. And applicable to this thread, this means that the Sioux nation has no legal grounds for banning Trump from Mount Rushmore.
Interesting you think that my comment applied to you since I never mentioned your name.
I agree with Little Nemo that your participation here has been completely non-substantive. You asked a question, which was correctly answered. You then posted “by treaty it is still their land,” which is incorrect; stated that the courts “ignored” that fact, which is legally wrong; sneered at the court’s position; and managed to yourself ignore the fact that legally the outcome is still in negotiations - but over compensation. Ownership is not in dispute.
It’s clear that you want the legal outcome to be different, but that’s just wishful thinking. Just as it’s probably wishful thinking on my part for you to say straightforwardly that’s what your position is.
I am pointing out that it is all too convenient for the government to illegally seize property, deny any reasonable access to the courts (the Sioux began their legal struggle for this land, after it was taken, in the early 1920’s…it was not “settled” until 1980).
In those intervening 60 years the government and people developed various things on that land.
Then, once it is a fait accompli, the government that improperly took the land tells you that they are really sorry about all of that but since they have built some stuff on that land there really is nothing much to be done so here…take some money and go away.
You say no, I don’t want the money and the government tells you it is settled. Go pound sand.
In the end the government wins because of course they do. But it shows the legal system can be manipulated to suit the government when it wants to (see: Kelo v. New London as a recent example).
That should bother any US citizen deeply because it means it can be done to you too.
I’m not so worried that it could be done to me, but I am extremely bothered that it was done to the Sioux. Most Native treaties (or “contracts” if you prefer) have been broken by the U.S. Government.
As wishful as it is to suppose you or Little Nemo have anything more to add than, “Cuz the supreme court said so.”
Moderator Note
This is General Questions. You asked what the law is, not what the law should be. If you want to debate the justice of the situation, open a new thread in Great Debates. Stop arguing this point here.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
So your argument is you’re upset?
By the way, you misread the Kelo decision. It doesn’t say what you think it says.
Okay, here’s the next step.
I’ve said on several occasions that I don’t like the Supreme Court’s Buckley decision. And I’ve said that what I would like to see happen is to have a constitutional amendment that overrides that decision.
It’s not unprecedented. The Fourteenth Amendment overrode the Dred Scott decision and the Sixteenth Amendment overrode the Pollock decision.
So are you saying that we need a constitutional amendment that overrides the Sioux Nation decision? And maybe the Kelo decision? If so, what would you want this amendment to say?