Happy Treason Day

[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