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

[Politesse]

"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

If that were true, the Allotment and Termination eras would never have happened (or the Bannock War, for that matter). We never get tired of taking, we just have to adjust their methods to account for public sentiment over time.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

um, no, why would that be my question.

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.

None of which makes this weird tangent relevant, but since you keep on insisting in bringing in interracial sex, let's talk about it. Since the treaties were about retention of long-standing rights and sometimes putting boundaries or borders around things, but also sometimes about putting at least some of the long-standing rights those tribes had on paper, you have to really introduce this idea of jurisdiction by multiple legal entities as well as long-standing recognized rights into your interracial sex analogy. To be clear, treaties do not merely cover geography on-reservation since many of the treaties also perpetuate long-standing land, water, etc rights off-reservation while typically tribal courts probably only have jurisdiction on-reservation.

So, let's introduce the federal government, a hypothetically federally recognized tribe, a treaty, and a reservation into your interracial sex analogy in Alabama. The old Alabama law was actually about sex between a White person and any other person who may have recent Black ancestry (within 3 generations). So, let's say there's a White lady and a man who had a grandfather who was an African slave at the far back time of this old law. Suffice to say, he meets the criteria for the old interracial sex law. But let's also say that two of his other grandparents were White and further that one was Native American. Let's say he uses some kind of system of paper trails recognized by the hypothetical Native American tribe in Alabama and so they recognize him as a tribal member, even though he has multi-racial ancestry. Let's further suppose the tribe had a treaty with the US government where the tribe conceded to a boundary of a reservation for their land ownership but they retained their rights to accustomed ceremonies and traditions that included marriage, sex, divorce, adoption, and an annual raindance in some specified town.

Now, suppose the White lady and the federally recognized tribal member reside off-reservation in the state of Alabama where this law is codified. They get married and are having interracial sex in their house. Twice on Tuesdays.

Would the state law supersede the treaty in place? Suppose both the interracial-sex having couple and the federal government sue the state in court for the law, do you think the state would win? (Yes or No).

Now, let's add a nuance. Suppose the treaty also covered water rights to waterways in Alabama and in a sense and looking at history, this meant that the tribe retained at least half-ownership of waterways because at the time historically they were also sharing those rights with the settlers. Now, let's suppose that the interracial couple while married in the state of Alabama, only has interracial sex in a canoe on a waterway in said domain where the ownership is shared between the public in a very broad sense so as to include both the original tribal ownership and the extension to the federal government having settled there. So, in this nuanced hypothetical, the couple does not have interracial sex in their home, just in a canoe, properly covered up and hidden behind some blankets or whatever.

Would the state law supersede the treaty within this location of the waterways where the interracial sex is taking place? Again, suppose both the interracial-sex having couple and the federal government sue the state in court for the law [after an arrest or whatever occurred], do you think the state would win in this waterway situation? (Yes or No).

 

[Bomb#20]

None of which makes this weird tangent relevant, but since you keep on insisting in bringing in interracial sex, let's talk about it. ... do you think the state would win in this waterway situation? (Yes or No).

It would not. The relevance of AM's weird tangent is obvious; that of your weird tangent to his weird tangent, no so much. In context, your wall of text amounts to the argument "Ryu's bill is constitutional if there's a federal treaty with Washington tribes authorizing their members to go about in boats off their reservations without lifejackets." Clearly true; but in order for this fact to be relevant to the thread, some treaty would need to imply that. Can you quote a pertinent passage from a such a treaty?

 

[Politesse]

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.

You are simply wrong about how the law works. The "rightness" or "wrongness" of a given law is not decided by the court of public opinion but by the due process of law. The same document you are citing also defines exactly what body has the responsibility to hear the case if the Constitutionality of a law is publicly challenged.

Treaty obligations are what the entire conversation is about, so if you aren't discussing them, I don't know what you are discussing but I'm not the one off topic here if so.

 

[bleubird]

"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

Sealaska

www.sealaska.com

Then and now.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

None of which makes this weird tangent relevant, but since you keep on insisting in bringing in interracial sex, let's talk about it.

Of course it is relevant, as I have repeatedly explained. In a discussion, a proper way of making a point is by considering parallels, and using them to show the absurdity in the claims of another poster. What you say now in your reply is irrelevant, as it ought to be obvious to you. Are you reading my posts? The example of interracial sex is incidental. It is an example of the SC making a mistake; I used it to debunk some of Politesse's claims.

So, let's introduce the federal government, a hypothetically federally recognized tribe, a treaty, and a reservation into your interracial sex analogy in Alabama.

Have you even read my posts? My analogy, and several other points, are meant to debunk the view that whatever the SC says is constitutional, is so (the same for legal, illegal, etc.), and similar absurd claims or implications.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

Of course, you did not say that. You implied that. I used those examples to show the absurdity of some of your claims, by considering their implications. And yes, in one case, you also said the opposite, as I pointed out. So, you implied A, and then said not-A.

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.

It cannot be further challenged within the legal system, in practice, though in theory there are remedies. That's why I mentioned justices being removed - and yes, there are other ways, in theory. But this is incidental, so moving on.

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.

Of course Congress is not powerless! But your posts implied otherwise.

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.

Considered legal by whom?

Regardless, again you are wrong. If Congress passes a law saying that all Indians are to be enslaved, that is an unconstitutional law. If the POTUS goes along with it, it is still unconstitutional. If the SCOTUS says it's constitutional, it is still unconstitutional. And if every person in the world gets a mind virus and comes to believe it's constitutional, it is still unconstitutional. No one feelings or beliefs have a bearing on whether the law is constitutional. And no SCOTUS ruling does, either - not in a constitutive sense, anyway, though they ascertain whether something is constitutional, and usually they get it right, but in a small percentage of cases they do not.

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:

Too gently? No, you did not say anything about time-travel. You implied it, in your reply to my question. And quoting yourself is pointless, because I obviously did not miss it; in fact, I quoted it, and pointed out that that contradicted what you had said before. But I still went with it, and showed your new position was still mistaken.

As for the 'gentle' part, after this piece of character assassination against me, you should not expect me to be gentle when demolishing your arguments. You should only expect that I will debate honestly and within the forum rules, but beyond that, gloves are off.

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?

Red herrings? No; even though you do not realize it, I have repeatedly debunked your claims about the Supreme Court, constitutionality, etc.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You are simply wrong about how the law works. The "rightness" or "wrongness" of a given law is not decided by the court of public opinion but by the due process of law. The same document you are citing also defines exactly what body has the responsibility to hear the case if the Constitutionality of a law is publicly challenged.

No, you are simply wrong about both what I said and how the law works. Yes, of course I know what body has the responsibility to hear the case. And sometimes, that body gets it wrong. That body does not make things legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional.

Treaty obligations are what the entire conversation is about, so if you aren't discussing them, I don't know what you are discussing but I'm not the one off topic here if so.

It is not off topic to debunk the claims you already made in the thread, and which you used to make an assessment about the thread topic. Your failure to understand what I am saying is, well, your failure, not mine.

 

[Politesse]

That body does not make things legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional.

And that's where you are simply incorrect, unless you (correctly) mean that the other two branches of government and the actions and perspectives of citizens also play a significant role in deciding questions of law.

I have no idea what you think law is, if not the sum total of the legal principles and processes of a nation-state as practiced. The Constitution is a document, not a natural fact; it has no meaning until interpreted by the human beings that create, interpret, and act in relation to it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

And that's where you are simply incorrect, unless you (correctly) mean that the other two branches of government and the actions and perspectives of citizens also play a significant role in deciding questions of law.

No, that is not what I mean. I explained carefully what I mean.

I have no idea what you think law is, if not the sum total of the legal principles and processes of a nation-state as practiced. The Constitution is a document, not a natural fact; it has no meaning until interpreted by the human beings that create, interpret, and act in relation to it.

It has a meaning, and it is a matter of fact what the meaning is. Of course, the meaning was created by humans, like all meanings of all documents. But it was already created. There is a fact of the matter as to what the Constitution says. The courts interpret the constitution, and their interpretation is either correct or incorrect. But what they cannot do is change what the Constitution says. Just think about it: imagine the SCOTUS says that the constitution is compatible with a state law banning black people from owning real state. Then the SCOTUS is mistaken, and the law remains unconstitutional. Now imagine every person in the world believes it is constitutional. Then every person in the world is mistaken, and it is still unconstitutional.