The Sioux nation has said president Trump does not have permission to visit Mt. Rushmore. Can they do that?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Little_Nemo

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?

Due to the note from the moderator I am not going for a warning by answering any further.

The question has been answered. This thread is over for me.

[Colibri]

@Little_Nemo

@Whack-a-Mole

@Little_Nemo

Well, what is your argument?

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.

So your argument is you’re upset?

By the way, you misread the Kelo decision. It doesn’t say what you think it says.

@Little_Nemo

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?

Moderator Note

My note applied to everyone in the thread. There is no need to continue the argument since I have told Whack-a-Mole to drop it. If you want to discuss this further start a new thread in Great Debates.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Little_Nemo]

@Whack-a-Mole

Due to the note from the moderator I am not going for a warning by answering any further.

The question has been answered. This thread is over for me.

Fair enough. I withdraw the question.

@Colibri

My note applied to everyone in the thread. There is no need to continue the argument since I have told Whack-a-Mole to drop it. If you want to discuss this further start a new thread in Great Debates.

I apologize. When I made the first post you quoted, I had not seen your moderator note (they were posted simultaneously).

I did not intend my second post to be a continuation of any existing argument. I was making an effort to shift the topic away from the question of what the law was to a debate on what the law should ideally be. But I will now drop this discussion entirely and also bow out of the thread.

[Colibri]

No problem.

[k9bfriender]

nevermind this post that has to be 20 characters long

[madsircool]

[Duckster]

{{meta.pageTitle}}

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980)

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

In 1980 the compensation was $105 million. The Lakota refused it.

As of 2011, the value in the BIA account was in excess of $1.3 billion.

[UltraVires]

What is the Sioux’s objection? It spent from 1877 to 1980 arguing that the deal it got in 1877 was unfair and that fair compensation was needed. That was not the law at the time. However, Congress passed FOUR special bills to allow the Sioux to bring the case, and in 1980, it upheld an award to the Sioux of fair market value of the land in 1877 ($7 million) plus 5% interest per year. The Sioux argued for money damages each time.

And the Sioux got a pretty fair deal. Yes, they “agreed” to it with the U.S. Army ready to wipe them out, but the original deal was “We get the land, but provide you rations until you are self-sufficient” Well into the 20th century, they were not self sufficient and the government paid over $40plus million in rations for piece of land worth $7 million.

The tribe went to court asking for money, after four special bills that no other litigant would get, receives exactly what it demanded, refused the money, and pretends it owns the land?

I wonder why the interest keeps accruing. If the government owed me money, could I refuse and let the fund build at a guaranteed 5% interest for as long as I wanted? That’s a pretty sweet deal with today’s interest rates.

Maybe this straying into GD territory, but I think the answer to the question is really undebatable absolutely not.

[Colibri]

@UltraVires

The tribe went to court asking for money, after four special bills that no other litigant would get, receives exactly what it demanded, refused the money, and pretends it owns the land?

I wonder why the interest keeps accruing. If the government owed me money, could I refuse and let the fund build at a guaranteed 5% interest for as long as I wanted? That’s a pretty sweet deal with today’s interest rates.

Maybe this straying into GD territory, but I think the answer to the question is really undebatable absolutely not.

Moderator Note

Then maybe you should stop debating it. The issue is what the law is currently, not what is fair. Also phrases like “pretends it owns the land” and “pretty sweet deal” are out of line. Further remarks of this kind will be subject to a warning.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[SCAdian]

@k9bfriender

nevermind this post that has to be 20 characters long

Surely it would have been easier to just delete the post than to type all that out…