DAPL And The Constitution

Insurgent Tribe ^ | 4/25/17 | Keith Nobles

[smashtheleft]

The issues underlying the months of protest at the Dakota Access Pipeline and the unfortunate way in which the DAPL issue was brought to a resolution has resulted in a Constitutional issue that was heartily debated and weighed in upon by the likes of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington being reduced to the level of something we might see on The Simpsons. In summary here is what occurred: a pipeline was intended to cross land that was identified as Lakota land via the Treaty of 1851. The Lakota argued that this was a violation of Article I and Article VI of the Constitution. This issue was quickly adopted by the Environmental Left as the issue du jour and Leftist who were not Indians showed up to protest en masse. Conservatives observed the Leftist showing up en masse and – here we move to The Simpsons motif – concluded that if the Left was opposed to something then Conservatives should automatically be for that thing. What was completely lost in this was that Article I and Article VI of the Constitution was being violated.

[shhrubbery!]

In the eagerness to defeat the Environmental Left the Constitutional rights of Indians have been completely swept away once again – and this time Republicans have been cheering that on.

Good piece and true. I was dismayed to see the usual Leftist mobs descend on this site and 'co-opt' the Indians' cause (to use the Left's own coinage).

Whatever arguments can be made in favor of completion of the pipeline –and there are good arguments– IF the planned route does in fact cross Indian land (and would thereby violate their Constitutional rights, if constructed via the planned route), then conservatives should oppose this violation.

Just as we conservatives oppose other unjust taking of land.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Except for whatever good or ill, the structures in place for evaluating the claim had long ago dismissed it. They can continue to make the same claims, just as a person who loses in court can still assert they were correct.

But the land was deemed to be owned by private property owners, not the tribe. The dispute was between those owners and the tribe, and took place long ago . DAPL bought the land from the “legally registered landowners”. And purposely avoided crossing any of the land recognized as being owned by the tribe, because working with the tribe was found to be difficult and too costly.