So if you don't like the conditions under which a treaty was signed, you can simply ignore it?
This was the entire problem with the 'treaties' of the 19th century; they treated the tribes as if they were bona-fide nations, with a leader who could negotiate for the whole tribe. So any time a treaty was signed, any subgroup could claim it wasn't done in their name, and walk. On that rationale, since I never voted for Martin Van Buren, why am I bound by a treaty he signed?
The entire legal edifice of the treaties and 'sovereignty' has no place in the 21st century. Few treaties in fact laid out explicit governmental autonomy for the tribes; that's been taken since then as implicit in the existence of the treaty. The treaties gave the tribes land; I don't propose to change that; they often made other promises of annuities - I propose to pay those at full value. What they seldom ( I won't say never, because I don't know) say is that the tribes could run their own autonomous government with the legal backing of the United States.