Papal Bulls and Authority In US Law
Romanua
Pontifex Jan 8 1455-
" We bestow suitable favors and special graces on those Catholic Kings
and Princes, athletes and intrepid champions of the Christian faith to
invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all saracens and pagans
whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and to reduce
their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate possessions
and goods, to convert them to their use and profits."
Papal
Authority is the basis for the United States authority over Indigenous
People. These Papal Bulls form the underlying fabric of United States
and International Law. John Marshall borrowed from the Papal Bulls the
essential legalisms needed for state power over indigenous nations.
Johnson
vs McIntosh- "...The potentates of the old world found no difficulty in
convincing themselves that they made ample compensation to the (surviving)
inhabitants of the new, by bestowing upon them civilization and Christianity."
In effect Indians were denied their rights because they were not Christian
and this has become the basis for denial of Indian rights in Federal Law
from 1823 until today! Since Johnson vs McIntosh has never been overruled,
the legal foundations for US sovereignty over indigenous nations
has remained "Christian Discovery". This fact has been concealed
by the insertion of the word 'European' for the word 'Christian'
in subsequent history and law books. Thus no lawyer or court need acknowledge
that land title claims in US law are based on Christian supremacy.
The "age of discovery" became the "age of european expansion".
Even Marshall admitted that the doctrine was an "extravagant...pretension"
which "may be opposed to natural right", nonetheless he concluded that
it "cannot be rejected by the courts of justice". Marshall also recognized
that the "discovery doctrine" required force. "These claims have been established
and maintained...by the sword."
The Spanish 'Requirement' of 1513 is the best example. It was required that this document be read to the indigenous populations before any hostilities or negociations could commence.
"Requiremento"
" ...Wherefore...we...require...that you acknowledge the Church as the
ruler and superior of the whole world,... But if you do not do this...
with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country and shall
make war against you in all ways... and shall subject you to the yoke and
obediance of the Church...
we
shall take you and your wives and your children and we shall make slaves
of them, selling and disposing of them as Their Highnesses shall command;
and we shall take away your goods and do you all the mischief and damage
that we can...and we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue
from this are your fault!...."
Sovereignty as Semantics.
John
Marshall Cherokee Nation vs State of Georgia 1831
"American Indian societies, though they are "nations" in the general sense
of the word, are not fully sovereign, but are "domestic dependent nations".
Federal
District Court US vs Blackfeet Tribe 1973
"No doubt the Indian Tribes were at one time sovereign and even now the
Tribes are sometimes described as being sovereign. The blunt fact, however,
is that an Indian Tribe is sovereign to the extent that the United States
permits it to be sovereign- neither more nor less.
While for many years the US recognized some elements of sovereignty in
the Indian Tribes and dealt with them by treaty, Congress, by Act of March
3, 1871, prohibited the further recognition of Indian Tribes as Independent
Nations. Thereafter the Indians and Indian Tribes were regulated by Acts
of Congress. This validates the power of Congress to govern by statute
rather than treaty. It follows that any Tribal ordinance permitting what
Congress forbids is void...."
The field of Federal Indian Law is based on the premise of "plenary power".
The fact that the Constitution never makes mention of "plenary power" is
only a small burr under the saddle of the Judges, administrative
agencies, and Congress of the United States in regard to their treatment
of their judicially created "wards".
Sovereignty as a Weapon
The US has used this semantic Sovereignty as the basis for building an entire apparatus for dispossessing its original Peoples of their lands, social organizations, and power of self determination.
In 1831, the Cherokee Nation was barred from suing the State of Georgia
in the Supreme Court, because "an Indian Nation is not a Foreign
Nation." while...
In 1997, the Supreme Court required the Coer d' Alene Tribe to sue in the
Idaho courts, rather than the Federal, because "Indian tribes...should
be accorded the same status as foreign sovereigns, against whom States
enjoy Eleventh Amendment Immunity."
In effect, the Cherokees could 'not' sue because they were not a foreign nation, the Coer d'alene can not sue because they 'are' (or should be treated as) a foreign nation! And none of the Courts will acknowledge thse discrepancies!
Sovereignty and the Western Shoshone
The 1863 Ruby Valley Treaty of Peace and Friendship gave Shoshone control over their lands but allowed government easements for mining access, etc. Today massive strip mining affects water and resources. Radioactive dumping occurs- and though legal title has never been ceded, the Supreme Court refuses to allow the issue to be litigated.
The
Temoak Band filed a land claim under the Indian Claims Commission Act of
1946. (This act recognized disolution of Land Title for monetary compensation
but did not even require a majority of the Tribe to enact).
Despite
objections from other Bands and a withdrawal of the claim by the Temoaks,
the Shoshone were 'informed' that the lands had been taken by the
US and monetary compensation would be made.
The Shoshone refused to accept the compensation and took the matter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which found that the Title had never been litigated and none of the claims were sufficient to take it away, and since compensation had been refused- the Land Title still belonged to the Shoshone.
The US Supreme Court reversed the decision, stating that the compensation had indeed been received-- by the United States acting as 'trustee' on behalf of the Tribe!
This
is a perfect example of how well our 'government to government' relationship
with our 'trustee' benefits Indian People and how the Reorganization Act
of 1934 was used as a tool to destroy working Tribal governments and replace
them with puppet Tribal Councils acting in the best interests of the United
States!