Might Is Not Right


"Truth is the summit of being: justice is the application of it to affairs.
...and whatever instances can be quoted of unpunished theft, or 
of lie which somebody has credited, justice must prevail,   
and it is the privilege of truth to make itself believed."

                                                   Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

From the beginning of the European invasion of North America the practice of making Indian treaties mirrored the constitutional recognition of the territorial sovereignty of the Indian tribes.

By necessary implication of law alone this fact recognized  their capacity to have "Ambassadors and public Ministers" for the negotiation and signing within the meaning of the constitution's original jurisdiction clause.

Then in the 1870s the federal government enacted legislation that denies the indigenous constitutional right and remedy.

Since the federal legislation does not comply with the constitution's amendment clause it is null and void as a repeal of the indigenous interest even though the courts give effect to it willfully by blindsiding the constitution and its Indian sovereignty precedents.

The fact that the courts do blindside the constitution precludes the existence of constitutional democracy under the rule of law.


The die was cast in terms of the constitutional recognition of Indian tribal sovereignty and its corresponding court remedy in North America in 1704 when Queen Anne commissioned a Standing Trial Level Sub-Committee of the Appellate Level Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) with independent and impartial third-party court jurisdiction over boundary disputes between sovereign crown and Indian tribal governments in the case of Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut (1704-1776) (Case Court Document 2 p.20). Thus when a delegation of three Mohawk and a Mahican Ambassador and Public Minister visited Her Majesty in 1710 they diplomatically were received as "Indian Kings" and the famous portraits reproduced in the banner were commissioned as such. That was then. The second reproduction is now. The legal point of the case is that while the constitutional law has been continuous since at least 1704 the attitude of the judicial branch of newcomer government has gone from respect and protection to contempt and genocide, without justification, solely by means of the judicial obstruction and ignoring of the constitution, since 1871, in abrogation of constitutional democracy under the rule of law, in aid of stealing the Indians' land, rather than continuing to make valid treaties for it as required by the constitution.  

Make a Free Website with Yola.