Happy Treason Day

[onlinebiker]

The neighbors cows got into my grandfather's cornfield and ruined his crop in 1943.

By your logic - the neighbors that live there now owe me for those spoiled crops..

A better analogy would be that your grandfather and his ancestors owned that farm for generations. People begin gradually encroaching on his farm - trespassing, stealing his corn, etc. To defend what is rightfully his, grandad decides on an armed response (a position I’m sure you’d feel comfortable with), and all the neighbours respond in kind.

This tit-for-tat drags on for several years until both sides get tired of it. They make a formal agreement that the farm will stay in your family in perpetuity and the neighbours will keep their mitts off it. 

Then oil (or gold or plantinum) is discovered on the farm, so the neighbours band together, tear up the agreement, and forcibly remove grandad from the farm.

You learn about all this and decide to go to law over it. The case drags on and on for so long that all the original parties to the agreement have died...BUT your case makes it all the way to the Supreme Court who decide that the land was illegally taken from your family and is yours by right.

Should the current occupiers be evicted and the property restored to you?

Boru

One major difference -

All signators have been dead for generations...


At some point it gets ridiculous honoring contracts of the long dead....


...

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

A better analogy would be that your grandfather and his ancestors owned that farm for generations. People begin gradually encroaching on his farm - trespassing, stealing his corn, etc. To defend what is rightfully his, grandad decides on an armed response (a position I’m sure you’d feel comfortable with), and all the neighbours respond in kind.

This tit-for-tat drags on for several years until both sides get tired of it. They make a formal agreement that the farm will stay in your family in perpetuity and the neighbours will keep their mitts off it. 

Then oil (or gold or plantinum) is discovered on the farm, so the neighbours band together, tear up the agreement, and forcibly remove grandad from the farm.

You learn about all this and decide to go to law over it. The case drags on and on for so long that all the original parties to the agreement have died...BUT your case makes it all the way to the Supreme Court who decide that the land was illegally taken from your family and is yours by right.

Should the current occupiers be evicted and the property restored to you?

Boru

One major difference -

All signators have been dead for generations...


At some point it gets ridiculous honoring contracts of the long dead....


...

Treaties are not personal arrangements, they are agreements between sovereign States signed by representatives OF those States. It doesn’t matter in the least that the individuals who signed the Laramie Treaty are dead, since the parties to that treaty (the US and the Sioux Nation) still exist. 

Did your Constitution become null and void when the last of the signers died? How about the Treaties Paris or Ghent? Will NATO dissolve when the last signatories give up the ghost?

Come on.

Boru

[onlinebiker]

One major difference -

All signators have been dead for generations...


At some point it gets ridiculous honoring contracts of the long dead....


...

Treaties are not personal arrangements, they are agreements between sovereign States signed by representatives OF those States. It doesn’t matter in the least that the individuals who signed the Laramie Treaty are dead, since the parties to that treaty (the US and the Sioux Nation) still exist. 

Did your Constitution become null and void when the last of the signers died? How about the Treaties Paris or Ghent? Will NATO dissolve when the last signatories give up the ghost?

Come on.

Boru

I guess I should expect this of those where they still think royalty is a birthright.

I find it absolutely primative and disgusting for any group to think they have special rights - just because they.were born into "the right family".

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Treaties are not personal arrangements, they are agreements between sovereign States signed by representatives OF those States. It doesn’t matter in the least that the individuals who signed the Laramie Treaty are dead, since the parties to that treaty (the US and the Sioux Nation) still exist. 

Did your Constitution become null and void when the last of the signers died? How about the Treaties Paris or Ghent? Will NATO dissolve when the last signatories give up the ghost?

Come on.

Boru

I guess I should expect this of those where they still think royalty is a birthright.

I find it absolutely primative and disgusting for any group to think they have special rights - just because they.were born into "the right family".

Deflection yet again. And I’m not a monarchist.

But seriously, now. You seem to feel that the US Constitution is somehow invalid. Or - at the very least - you’re selective about which bits of it are valid. Why?

Boru

[onlinebiker]

I guess I should expect this of those where they still think royalty is a birthright.

I find it absolutely primative and disgusting for any group to think they have special rights - just because they.were born into "the right family".

Deflection yet again. And I’m not a monarchist.

But seriously, now. You seem to feel that the US Constitution is somehow invalid. Or - at the very least - you’re selective about which bits of it are valid. Why?

Boru

Nope.. Wrong again.

The Constitutuon prohibits making treaties such as were made.

But you knew that - right?


No "titles of nobility".

Or did you miss that part?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Deflection yet again. And I’m not a monarchist.

But seriously, now. You seem to feel that the US Constitution is somehow invalid. Or - at the very least - you’re selective about which bits of it are valid. Why?

Boru

Nope.. Wrong again.

The Constitutuon prohibits making treaties such as were made.

But you knew that - right?


No "titles of nobility".

Or did you miss that part?

Sorry, where do you find ‘titles of nobility’ in the Fort Laramie treaty? Why are you even bringing this up? It’s irrelevant.

Boru

[onlinebiker]

Nope.. Wrong again.

The Constitutuon prohibits making treaties such as were made.

But you knew that - right?


No "titles of nobility".

Or did you miss that part?

Sorry, where do you find ‘titles of nobility’ in the Fort Laramie treaty? Why are you even bringing this up? It’s irrelevant.

Boru

Ir isn't in the Treaty.

It's in t he Constitution.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Sorry, where do you find ‘titles of nobility’ in the Fort Laramie treaty? Why are you even bringing this up? It’s irrelevant.

Boru

Ir isn't in the Treaty.

It's in t he Constitution.

I think we’re at cross purposes. 

I’m aware that the US doesn’t grant titles of nobility (a position with which I heartily concur). But why even bring it up? It’s got nothing to do with the legal ownership of the Black Hills, which is what I thought we were talking about.

Boru

[onlinebiker]

Ir isn't in the Treaty.

It's in t he Constitution.

I think we’re at cross purposes. 

I’m aware that the US doesn’t grant titles of nobility (a position with which I heartily concur). But why even bring it up? It’s got nothing to do with the legal ownership of the Black Hills, which is what I thought we were talking about.

Boru

The treaties are not legal under the Constitution.

Look at the definition of nobility -

A group of people afforded class by only the measure of heredity....

....

Nobody has challenged the treaties - yet.

I expect someday a sharp lawyer - probably employed by casino interests will take it to the Supreme Court..

(And yes - the SC can nulify treaties.)

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think we’re at cross purposes. 

I’m aware that the US doesn’t grant titles of nobility (a position with which I heartily concur). But why even bring it up? It’s got nothing to do with the legal ownership of the Black Hills, which is what I thought we were talking about.

Boru

The treaties are not legal under the Constitution.

Look at the definition of nobility -

A group of people afforded class by only the measure of heredity....

....

Nobody has challenged the treaties - yet.

I expect someday a sharp lawyer - probably employed by casino interests will take it to the Supreme Court..

(And yes - the SC can nulify treaties.)

Yes, the treaties are legal. Your argument fails because they do not grant a title of nobility. The Sioux under the terms of the treaty were simply promised that what was already theirs would go on being theirs.

There’s a very good reason why the Fort Laramie treaty hasn’t been challenged. See if you can figure it out 

Yes, the Court can nullify treaties. But since they’ve never done so, they’re unlikely to start with one they’ve already ruled in favour of. They’ve decided that the US illegally seized the land in violation of the treaty, that the land belongs to the Sioux and that they are legally entitled to be compensated for the seizure.

Don’t like it? Tough. Treaties are the ‘supreme law of the land’.

Boru