This week in woke idiocy: Indians don't need floatation devices because of "eons of experience" ...

[bleubird]

One of my old friends is a Tlingit canoe chief, and paddle maker. Next time I see him i will ask if this is an issue here.The Coast Guard is the authority here in all things about navigable waters.

Link

​

Making treaties with Indian tribes was the common way to make alliances with tribes and to acquire land for settlers. The treaties generally designated specific lands for the tribe, including provisions about wildlife and other natural resources the Indians had continued use of. However, eventually all of the Treaties were broken and violated by settlers and the U.S. Government. Treaties are a large part of federal Indian law for most of the tribes in the Lower 48 states. Treaty-making with Indian tribes was terminated by Congress in 1871, just a few years after the purchase of Alaska, so there are no treaties with Alaska tribes.

Yes, there is only one Res. in Alaska. ANCSA created corporations.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Okay, sorry, my mistake. I took a look, and what the court found constitutional was not the ban on interracial marriage, but on interracial sex. And it was mistaken about that. But let me try another way:

First, the SC is mistaken in many cases, even if it's only a tiny proportion of all cases. Indeed, there are plenty of cases that are decided 5-4, or 6-3, etc., and the odds are that the minorities got it right in a substantial portion of those cases. Granted, one can get more information by reading each case, and make a probabilistic assessment that does not rely on the numbers. But I'm going with the information at hand, and it would be extremely improbable that they got all of those right.

Second, SC justices realize that the SC can be mistaken. In fact, they all have been on the minority at one point or another, and minorities usually say that the majority is incorrect.

Third, there are plenty of cases in which the SC reverses previous rulings. So, either the SC was mistaken in the first ruling, or it was mistaken in the second ruling.

Fourth, the idea that whatever the SC says is constitutional is constitutional because the SC says so is clearly mistaken, simply because the Constitution has content. In other words, the Constitution actually says something. So it is not the case that it says whatever the SC says, no matter what.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You are incorrect. The Supreme Court can "change its mind", and retroactively make actions legal that would have been illegal, but the legality of a ruling does not change until they have declared it thus. This isn't something that is done "on spec" at the whim of random citizens, nor could such a system be solvent.


And what you want them to declare, that honoring existing treaty rights is a violation of the 14th amendment for some reason, is an extremely unlikely ruling for them to make. You can't even make a convincing argument to 10-15 people on the internet, your court case is not going to go well.

That is not true. SC justices can change their respective minds, or the composition of the SC can change. But that does not change the fact that rulings may well be mistaken, and many of them are. I already explained that in my replies to you and Ziprhead. Now, a ruling can be legal in the sense that it was issued complying with certain forms (so, it is formally legal), but that does not make it correct, and does not make an unconstitutional action constitutional, obviously. For example, in Pace v. Alabama, the SC said that Alabama's law criminalizing sex between whites and non-whites was constitutional. But it was not. People who were imprisoned as a result were imprisoned illegally, because an unconstitutional law passed by a legislature is not a law in the sense of the US Constitution, which says

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

And I do not know what you're talking about regarding treaty rights (mistaken identity, perhaps?), but in any event, there is a vast difference between making a convincing argument in the sense that an argument that would persuade a person who is being epistemically rational, and making an argument that will actually persuade an internet opponent. I can do the former easily, but almost never the latter.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Okay, sorry, my mistake. I took a look, and what the court found constitutional was not the ban on interracial marriage, but on interracial sex. And it was mistaken about that.

This thread is getting weird.

 

[Politesse]

And I do not know what you're talking about regarding treaty rights (mistaken identity, perhaps?), but in any event, there is a vast difference between making a convincing argument in the sense that an argument that would persuade a person who is being epistemically rational, and making an argument that will actually persuade an internet opponent. I can do the former easily, but almost never the latter.

If you aren't talking about the legal rights of Washington tribes, what the hell are you talking about?? Not the topic of the thread, whatever it is.

And I would be surprised if this sort of nonsense has ever convinced anyone of anything.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Okay, sorry, my mistake. I took a look, and what the court found constitutional was not the ban on interracial marriage, but on interracial sex. And it was mistaken about that.

This thread is getting weird.

What do you find weird? I made a mistake on an incidental point that I was using as an illustration of what was wrong with one of Politesse's claims, but that had no bearing on the points I was making. I just switched to another example, since there are plenty.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

And I do not know what you're talking about regarding treaty rights (mistaken identity, perhaps?), but in any event, there is a vast difference between making a convincing argument in the sense that an argument that would persuade a person who is being epistemically rational, and making an argument that will actually persuade an internet opponent. I can do the former easily, but almost never the latter.

If you aren't talking about the legal rights of Washington tribes, what the hell are you talking about?? Not the topic of the thread, whatever it is.

And I would be surprised if this sort of nonsense has ever convinced anyone of anything.

I was talking about what I said I was talking about; in that particular parts of my posts in this thread, I was talking about the claims about the US constitutional system that you made, and which were mistaken. Remember, B20 noted the following fact:

Please note that the Fourteenth Amendment actually says nothing about race. If a law passed by Congress set the national speed limit at 55 mph, or 65 mph for any person who could prove descent from a passenger or crewmember of the Mayflower, that would be a Fourteenth Amendment violation too.

Then you replied:

Unless an act of Congress had passed some law that created such a category and defined standards to determine who did or did not belong in it, and the Supreme Court deemed that law Constitutional.

I pointed out that that was not true. If Congress and the SC did that, that would still be a Fourteenth Amendment violation. Then you insisted on your interpretation of the US constitutional system. And I kept explaining why that interpretation was in error.

That aside, I am not speaking nonsense but making good arguments, and while I would be surprised if any of my debate opponents were convinced of anything that goes against their religion/ideology, perhaps some of the readers are not adherents, and perhaps some of them will be persuaded by reason. Who knows?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So is it your position that segregated schools were not in fact a Fourteenth Amendment violation after Plessey v Ferguson but before Brown v Board of Education, or is it your position that Brown v Board of Education reached backward through time and retroactively caused them to have been a Fourteenth Amendment violation all along?

I do not know whether Politesse will ever answer your question, but his reply in this post seems to indicate it's the latter. So, it was a Fourteenth Amendment violation all along...unless, of course, in the future the SC declares it was not a violation ever, which would cause it not to be a violation ever through time-backwards causation...unless, of course, further into the future...

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Okay, sorry, my mistake. I took a look, and what the court found constitutional was not the ban on interracial marriage, but on interracial sex. And it was mistaken about that.

This thread is getting weird.

What do you find weird? I made a mistake on an incidental point that I was using as an illustration of what was wrong with one of Politesse's claims, but that had no bearing on the points I was making. I just switched to another example, since there are plenty.

Your commentary regarding the history of legality of interracial sex doesn't seem related to Native American teaties.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Okay, sorry, my mistake. I took a look, and what the court found constitutional was not the ban on interracial marriage, but on interracial sex. And it was mistaken about that.

This thread is getting weird.

What do you find weird? I made a mistake on an incidental point that I was using as an illustration of what was wrong with one of Politesse's claims, but that had no bearing on the points I was making. I just switched to another example, since there are plenty.

Your commentary regarding the history of legality of interracial sex doesn't seem related to Native American teaties.

As you can see in the exchange, my comments on the matter of interracial sex were merely an example used to show that Politesse's constitutional interpretation was incorrect. He was using that interpretation in the context of his claims involving the treaties.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Okay, sorry, my mistake. I took a look, and what the court found constitutional was not the ban on interracial marriage, but on interracial sex. And it was mistaken about that.

This thread is getting weird.

What do you find weird? I made a mistake on an incidental point that I was using as an illustration of what was wrong with one of Politesse's claims, but that had no bearing on the points I was making. I just switched to another example, since there are plenty.

Your commentary regarding the history of legality of interracial sex doesn't seem related to Native American teaties.

As you can see in the exchange, my comments on the matter of interracial sex were merely an example used to show that Politesse's constitutional interpretation was incorrect. He was using that interpretation in the context of his claims involving the treaties.

How is weird commentary regarding the history of legality of interracial sex related to treaties?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Okay, sorry, my mistake. I took a look, and what the court found constitutional was not the ban on interracial marriage, but on interracial sex. And it was mistaken about that.

This thread is getting weird.

What do you find weird? I made a mistake on an incidental point that I was using as an illustration of what was wrong with one of Politesse's claims, but that had no bearing on the points I was making. I just switched to another example, since there are plenty.

Your commentary regarding the history of legality of interracial sex doesn't seem related to Native American teaties.

As you can see in the exchange, my comments on the matter of interracial sex were merely an example used to show that Politesse's constitutional interpretation was incorrect. He was using that interpretation in the context of his claims involving the treaties.

How is weird commentary regarding the history of legality of interracial sex related to treaties?

If your question is a general question about the legality of interracial sex vs. the content of treaties, they have no relation as far as I can tell.
If your question is how the comment is relevant in the context of this particular discussion about several things including some treaties, the answer is that it shows that Politesse's constitutional interpretation is incorrect - an interpretation that he used in the context of the thread, before I posted my comment. This is not a particular interpretation about a particular treaty, but the general idea regarding the relation between SCOTUS rulings and constitutionality - and broadly legality. But you do not need to believe me: If you take a look at the exchange and you read what was said by either of us, you should have no trouble realizing why the comment was relevant to the ongoing conversation.

 

[Politesse]

I pointed out that that was not true. If Congress and the SC did that, that would still be a Fourteenth Amendment violation. Then you insisted on your interpretation of the US constitutional system. And I kept explaining why that interpretation was in error.

And you were wrong. That is not, in fact, how the law functions.

 

[Politesse]

So is it your position that segregated schools were not in fact a Fourteenth Amendment violation after Plessey v Ferguson but before Brown v Board of Education, or is it your position that Brown v Board of Education reached backward through time and retroactively caused them to have been a Fourteenth Amendment violation all along?

I do not know whether Politesse will ever answer your question, but his reply in this post seems to indicate it's the latter. So, it was a Fourteenth Amendment violation all along...unless, of course, in the future the SC declares it was not a violation ever, which would cause it not to be a violation ever through time-backwards causation...unless, of course, further into the future...

Correct, at least in broad strokes. That is exactly how the system of law functions. Ultimately, it is up to the court system to determine whether laws are or are not in accordance with Constitutional law and existing precedent, or not, and up to the Congress to create new laws should the need arise. Not only does this apply to treaty-making, it very specifically applies to treaty-related law, as one of the ten special categories that fall under the Supreme Court's purview in the first place.

Reference:

The 3rd Article of the U.S. Constitution

SECTION. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at...

constitutioncenter.org

It should be noted, though, that this does not necessarily extend to making actions in the past retroactively criminal in character; there are strict and severe limits on such. So it's really quite irrelevant, and not quite accurate to say "retroactively caused them to have been a violation all along". The courts determine what the law is, not what it was. Time-forward, not time-backward. Such school arrangements were considered legal during the period between those two rulings, now they are not. You can't sue your local school for having been formally segregated during a time period when that practice was considered legal. But you could most certainly sue them for trying it now, if they do.

 

[skepticalbip]

I pointed out that that was not true. If Congress and the SC did that, that would still be a Fourteenth Amendment violation. Then you insisted on your interpretation of the US constitutional system. And I kept explaining why that interpretation was in error.

And you were wrong. That is not, in fact, how the law functions.

You are confusing what the law is and how the law functions. There are many laws enacted and enforced that are unconstitutional so illegal. Unfortunately, most of them are never reviewed by the Supreme Court. But then, sadly, the court is becoming more political and less judicial.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I pointed out that that was not true. If Congress and the SC did that, that would still be a Fourteenth Amendment violation. Then you insisted on your interpretation of the US constitutional system. And I kept explaining why that interpretation was in error.

And you were wrong. That is not, in fact, how the law functions.

No, you are mistaken, as I have shown.

 

[Politesse]

There are many laws enacted and enforced that are unconstitutional so illegal.

And there is a well-established legal process for challenging or defending such laws. It is only through that process that the status of a law can be changed. Nothing is "illegal" until a legal process, either the passing of a new law or a court ruling limiting the existing law, has taken place. You are drawing an imaginary distinction between "what the law is" and "how the law functions". The law is a functional entity. Of what use is it otherwise? Absent its function in society, what does "law" even refer to?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Correct, at least in broad strokes. That is exactly how the system of law functions. Ultimately, it is up to the court system to determine whether laws are or are not in accordance with Constitutional law and existing precedent, or not, and up to the Congress to create new laws should the need arise. Not only does this apply to treaty-making, it very specifically applies to treaty-related law, as one of the ten special categories that fall under the Supreme Court's purview in the first place.

No, that is not the case. But let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that that is how the system works - time-backwards causation!!!
Here are some of the consequences:

First, we do not know, for example, whether banning interracial marriage is unconstitutional. You do not know that because maybe a future SC will make it constitutional by their say so, and if so, it will do so retroactively. And maybe that will not be canceled by a further future SC.

Second, justices are very confused about their own job. They believe that sometimes, the SC makes mistakes. They say so in their dissenting opinions. But while the SC makes mistakes, the mistakes need not be related to the arguments made in the dissenting opinions. Rather, the SC makes mistakes whenever they say X is constitutional but the last SC to decide on the matter will declare it unconstitutional, making it unconstitutional backwards in time.

Third, there is no democracy. Congress does not matter. What is legal, constitutional, etc., is whatever the last SCOTUS to rule on the matter will say. Are the treaties unconstitutional? We do not know. It might be decided in 100 years, with retrocausal effect.

Ultimately, it is up to the court system to determine whether laws are or are not in accordance with Constitutional law and existing precedent, or not, and up to the Congress to create new laws should the need arise.

In the theory above, it is not the court system, but the SC that makes the last ruling on the matter. It might be 100 years or 200 years into the future.

But in reality, the courts ascertain whether something is legal, constitutional, etc., and make a ruling. Sometimes they get it wrong, though usually they get it right. When the SC gets it wrong, the system has no further court to appeal to. Given that justices are not likely removed, then justice is effectively denied. It happens, and no system is perfect. But it works as I have explained.

It should be noted, though, that this does not necessarily extend to making actions in the past retroactively criminal in character; there are strict and severe limits on such.

That contradicts what you said before, though. Remember, the courts decide. Well, the last SC does, but let us simplify. For example, a future SC might decide that some actions in the past were criminal, and that the so-called "strict and severe limits" were a misinterpretation. So, they make actions retroactively criminal (time travel has this sort of funny consequences).

The courts determine what the law is, not what it was.

That contradicts what you said just above. But let us forget your previous claims, and say the system is like you say now. Remember that in Pace v. Alabama, the SC said that the Alabama statute banning interracial sex was constitutional. So, they were correct, because they cannot be wrong - they are the SC!
So, it was legal to ban interracial marriage, and Tony Pace and Mary Cox were lawfully convicted. However, if the SC had decided otherwise, then the law would have been unconstitutional and Pace and Cox would have been unlawfully convicted. Because the SC makes what is unconstitutional and what is not so. Well, at the time of the ruling. Now, the time of the events was actually prior to the rulings, so the SC could not say what the law was back then...so, we get further absurdity.

 

[Politesse]

No, that is not the case. But let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that that is how the system works - time-backwards causation!!!
Here are some of the consequences:

First, we do not know, for example, whether banning interracial marriage is unconstitutional. You do not know that because maybe a future SC will make it constitutional by their say so, and if so, it will do so retroactively. And maybe that will not be canceled by a further future SC.

Second, justices are very confused about their own job. They believe that sometimes, the SC makes mistakes. They say so in their dissenting opinions. But while the SC makes mistakes, the mistakes need not be related to the arguments made in the dissenting opinions. Rather, the SC makes mistakes whenever they say X is constitutional but the last SC to decide on the matter will declare it unconstitutional, making it unconstitutional backwards in time.

Third, there is no democracy. Congress does not matter. What is legal, constitutional, etc., is whatever the last SCOTUS to rule on the matter will say. Are the treaties unconstitutional? We do not know. It might be decided in 100 years, with retrocausal effect.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I certainly didn't write any of those things, nor are they in any sense true. In the case of the first, I literally said the opposite. The other two seem so off the wall I am baffled as to how you came up with them.

In the theory above, it is not the court system, but the SC that makes the last ruling on the matter. It might be 100 years or 200 years into the future.

But in reality, the courts ascertain whether something is legal, constitutional, etc., and make a ruling. Sometimes they get it wrong, though usually they get it right. When the SC gets it wrong, the system has no further court to appeal to. Given that justices are not likely removed, then justice is effectively denied. It happens, and no system is perfect. But it works as I have explained.

It can, but any lower court can also make a ruling on Constitutionality, the Supreme Court does not hear every case. It can also be over-ridden, where you got the idea that the Supreme Court cannot be challenged I have no idea. Any ruling can be overturned either by the Court's own future decisions, or through the revision of the Constitution through the Amendments process. Both situations are exceedingly rare, but not non-existent as the passage of 14th indeed aptly demonstrates. When it passed into law, hundreds if not thousands of Supreme Court decisions concerning the rights of a citizen were effectively annulled in all future cases. Congress is not powerless in matters of law, it just has a different role relative to it than do the courts.

So, they were correct, because they cannot be wrong - they are the SC!

I made no special claim about the "rightness" of the Supreme Court, I definitely have issues with many of the rulings it has made over the years. But my personal feelings have no bearing whatsoeveron whether or not something is considered legal.

So, they make actions retroactively criminal (time travel has this sort of funny consequences)

This is very specifically not in the power of the Supreme Court or any court. A behavior can be decriminalized by a future ruling, but not criminalized. This is a consequence of the Constitutional prohibition against ex post facto law. There's no time travel involved here, aside from in your dumbass posts. I said nothing about time-travel, except to gently (too gently apparently) correct your confusion about it. To quote myself, since you seem to have missed it:

The courts determine what the law is, not what it was. Time-forward, not time-backward.

One does not need a time machine to travel forward in time, it carries us along quite naturally of its own accord.

I take these wacky side trips as admission that your central point, whatever the heck it is, is not very defensible. Otherwise, why throw in all of these red herrings?

 

[TomC]

"Treaty-making with Indian tribes was terminated by Congress in 1871, just a few years after the purchase of Alaska, so there are no treaties with Alaska tribes."

Pardon my lack of historical precision.
But doesn't that date closely correspond with "indigenous peoples no longer control anything worth stealing"?
Tom