'It’s going to cause an uproar': Sioux president says Trump not welcome to visit Mount Rushmore..

And we all see how much his opinion mattered.

 

About as much as his legal property rights mattered. Trump's ego must always be above the law, apparently.

 

Aint it funny how the "stolen land" types have this idyllic mental pic of "mostly peaceful" natives?

 

Isn't it funny how the "law and order" types don't care for the law and the Constitution when it doesn't say what they want it to say?

 

Example?

 

When they want to ignore the law when it comes to who actually owns the land in question -- the Oglala Sioux.

 

LOL, sure, run with that.

 

I don't need to "run" with anything. Our laws say the land is theirs. The Constitution says the land is theirs. Like I said: the "law and order" crowd likes to pick and choose which laws they actually care about and which they don't. You asked for an example; turns out you are one.

 

so....who is "stealing the land" this time around? Why can't you just discuss the topic without trying to make it about me? I'm kinda a big deal and everything but....

 

And where is this in the Constitution?

 

"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"

The land is theirs based on the Treaty of Fort Laramie. Congress broke this treaty in order to take this land, thus breaking the Constitution. Hence why the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress acted illegally.

 

So again, who is denying them use of the land? Every Indian knows white man speaks with two tongues!

 

Let's say I sold you a house. We sign all the paperwork. You now own the house. Then, one day you come home and I'm living there and knocking down some walls because I want a more spacious living room. When you point out that I am in your house I turn around and say, "So? Who is denying you use of the house? You can use this house all you want!"

Serious question: do you not realize that this would be complete bull ****?

 

Nice analogy but you did not answer the question. Might equals right, life aint fair. Fair comes to town once a year and the Indians are late.

 

And that's the thread.

 

@yardmeat, is that a NO then?

 

Not for those paying attention. Our treaty was with the Sioux.

 

You choose might makes right. I choose the rule of law. Good to know where we both stand: me for Constitutionalism and you, by admission, for thuggery

 

LOL, this country was founded on conquest.

 

Technically the land does belong to the government. SCOTUS agreed that the US government stole the land. However instead of returning the land SCOTUS decided to instead pay them $15.5 million for the market value of the land along with 103 years worth of interest at 5 percent, for an additional $105 million. The Sioux however have refused payment but are still owed it. Currently the US government owes them over a billion dollars due to that.

So, legally the land does belong to the US. The money belongs to the Sioux.

Mind you however both sides were not holding up to their end of the treaty even before the government took the land. Such as Sioux parties going out and attacking other Indian tribes when they were expressly forbidden to per the treaty and the government not protecting their borders. Neither side is clean in this.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Sioux_Nation_of_Indians

 

@yardmeat, your silence is TELLING!

 

"Lying asses" is closer to the truth.

 

And that's the thread, Part 2.

 

Herman Cain dead yet??