Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Rusty0604
Constitutionally speaking, the Indians have a point.

US Constitution, Section 6, Clause 2: This Constitution ...and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

There were an awful lot of treaties made "under the Authority of the United States" with Indian tribes. Just about every one of them was broken. A strict reading of the Constitution would seem to say all those broken treaties are still "the supreme law of the land," trumping any state laws to the contrary.

I'm not sure whether this clause makes it clear if a law passed by Congress can override a Treaty.

24 posted on 01/21/2014 8:53:44 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Sherman Logan

Should make it clear I’m not up on the specifics of this case.

My comment was more general in nature.


25 posted on 01/21/2014 8:54:42 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Sherman Logan

If the EPA or this administration is following the constitution, this will be a first.

After 100 years, one would have to ask, why now?

Will they now consider this?: “The name Aztlán was first taken up by a group of Chicano independence activists led by Oscar Zeta Acosta during the Chicano movement of the 1960s and 1970s. They used the name Aztlán to refer to the lands of Northern Mexico that were sold to the United States as a result of the Mexican-American War. Aztlán became a symbol for mestizo activists who believe they have a legal and primordial right to the land. In order to exercise this right, some members of the Chicano movement propose that a new nation be created, a República del Norte.”


31 posted on 01/21/2014 9:03:37 AM PST by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Sherman Logan
US Constitution, Section 6, Clause 2: This Constitution ...and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

You are assuming that the federal government has the authority to alter the borders of the states, it does not:

Art 4, Section. 3.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
So then, a treaty made not under the authority of the United States is not [nor can it be] the supreme law of the land.
55 posted on 01/21/2014 12:42:09 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson