constitution defender
Member since Sep 7, 2017
Recent Comments
Re: “In McKinley's Shadow”
This is yet one more Article where the core iss is to be mired in "Indian victimhood" scenarios more thatn130-years old. Perhaps it is time for the non-Indian citizens of the United States to recognize that post the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, there are no more "Indians" within the original meaning of the United States Constitution...only U.S./State citizens with "Indian ancestry/race" entitled to no more and no less than every other non-Indian U.S./State citizen!
It never ceases to amaze me just how United States Constitution-stupid politicians-state and federal-are piled on top of how stupid their attorneys are! As of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, there are no more "Indians" within the original meaning of the United States Constitution...only U.S./State citizens with "Indian ancestry/race" entitled to no more and no less than every other non-Indian U.S./State citizen in accordance with the U.S. Constitutions 14th Amendments equal protection Clause! And, yet, faux Title 25-INDIANS and faux 'Indian treaties' whereby these attorneys and politicians-state and federal-assert the United State Constitution has provision whereby We, the People, have 'treaties' with Other We, the People, because of the "Other's" Indian ancestry/race and non-Indians believe this hoax.
Worse yet are judges-state and federal-who woefully fail to uphold and defend the United States Constitution in their oath of office clearly articulated in CJ Marshall's Marbury decision posted below by accepting both sides attorney's petition there are "Indian Treaties" and "Indian reservations" where politicians-state and federal-continue to regulate from womb to tomb a select group of U.S./State citizens health, welfare, safety, benefits, capacities, metes and boundaries because of their "Indian ancestry/race" at the same time condemn "Jim Crow Laws" citing the United States Constitution's 14th Amendment for one....what hypocrites!
The United States Constitution makes for no provisions for "Indian reservations!" Land commonly known as an "Indian reservation" with rare exception is land owned by the People of the United States according to a federal document readily available on-line where U.S./State citizens with "Indian ancestry/race" residing on said land are merely tenants with rights of 'use and occupancy' only!
If I can find these federal documents on-line, why are high-powered politicians-state and federal-and their highly paid attorneys and judges-state and federal-too stupid to do the same?
United States Supreme Court MARBURY v. MADISON, (1803) Argued: Decided: February 1, 1803:
If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178] So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
Re: “Resisting Reparations”
Terry Escarda. You failed to mention the Indian tribes lost the wars to the United States Armed Forces as provided-for by the United States Constitution! Time to get over events more than 130-years ago.
Secondly, provide the historical facts you claim and not your unsupported opinion: " by murder, butchery, deceit, and theft."
Lastly, you did not disprove any of my Constitution-based truths.
Re: “Resisting Reparations”
Mr. Robin P. Arkley II is correct to demand answers to his questions of public servants who allegedly are giving away public land to a faux "Indian tribe" under what state Constitutional authority?
This article is an astonishing piece of a deplorable lack of journalist curiosity regarding U.S./State citizens with Indian ancestry/race since The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924! That single Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, made null all previous common law-state and federal-including Presidential Executive Orders, Commerce Clause and Treaty Clause alleged Indian Treaties (if any U.S. Senate confirmed Indian treaties actually existed pre-1924 Citizenship) regarding U.S./State citizens with Indian ancestry/race so often touted by politicians and Indian advocates as being legitimate law.
And yet, politicians and MSM continue to perpetuate willful blindness to the Constitutional absurdity that Congress, Presidents/Governors, Initiatives and Referendums can make distinguishable the capacities, metes and boundaries of a select group of U.S./State citizens with Indian ancestry/race post citizenship.
The United States Constitution makes for no provisions for:
1. Indian sovereign nations. None of the asserted tribes possess any of the attributes of being a sovereign nation: a. No U.S. Constitution recognition b. No international recognition c. No fixed borders d. No military e. No currency f. No postal system g. No passports h. et al
2. Treaties with its own constituency
3. Indian reservations whereby a select group of U.S./State citizens with Indian ancestry/race reside exclusively and to the exclusion of all others, on land-with rare exception-that is owned by the People of the United States according to federal documents readily available on-line that notes rights of renters as occupancy and use by these distinguished U.S./State citizens with Indian ancestry/race only with the land owned by the People of the United States.
4. Recognition of Indian citizenship asserted by various tribes. There is no international/U.S. Constitution recognition of Indian citizenship as there is no nation-state from which citizenship is derived.
A simple question for politicians and MSM to answera question so simple, it is hard:
Where is the proclamation ratified by the voters of the United States that amends the Constitution to make the health, welfare, safety and benefits of a select group of U.S./State citizens distinguishable because of their Indian ancestry/race?
Re: “'We're Coming Home'”
Nowhere in the United States Constitution's Articles is the enumerated power for politicians-state and federal-to surrender the sovereignty of a state to an "Indian tribe!" Nowhere in the United States Constitution is there enumerated powers for the existence of U.S.C. Title 25-INDIANS!