LEGAL TERRORISM, FEAR MONGERING, LIES, DECEPTION, AND FRAUD©

HOW SOVEREIGN IS THE INHERENTLY SOVEREIGN INDIAN TRIBES AND INDIANS IN SOVEREIGN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

By Judge Navin-Chandra Naidu

LAW CLASS OF MARCH 12, 2016

Dueling propositions, interpretations, takes, meanings, readings, twists and spins mark the issue of tribal sovereignty in the United States of America regardless of military, political, commercial, judicial, legislative, executive, academia, or legal perspectives. It is at best a hodgepodge of schizophrenic concepts as Justice Clarence Thomas called it in United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193, 219 (2004) (Thomas, J., concurring)

Indians are mentioned three times in the U.S. Constitution: In Article 1, section 2, clause 3 (…Indians not taxed”); the Indian Commerce Clause in Article 1, section 8, clause 3; and section 1 of the 14th Amendment (…”Indians not taxed).

The “Indians not taxed” label has not been amended or repealed. It is still, very much, in the text of the U.S. Constitution. Is this why we have Section V of Revenue Ruling 67-284 which says The IRS Codes do not tax Indians? Or could it be that Indians are pre-eminently and inherently sovereign as original landowners that the federal government thought it wise to grant them tax exemptions forever?

In 1790, as if the two references to the Indians was not enough to sustain some sort of neutrality ( the 14th Amendment was almost 80 years away), the Washington Administration passed the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act to protect and preserve Indian land rights, especially. Clearly, sexual relations (screwing the Indians was not the consensus or the reigning political agenda – not yet…..Andrew Jackson was busy honing his skills and sharpening his sword while cleaning his guns….)

The Indian Commerce Clause:

Let’s examine the definition and meanings of “commerce.”

commerce |ˈkämərs|(abbr.: comm. )

noun

1 the activity of buying and selling, esp. on a large scale: the possible increase of commerce by a great railroad.

2 dated social dealings between people: outside the normal commerce of civilized life.

3 archaic - sexual intercourse.

ORIGIN mid 16th cent. ( sense 2): from French, or from Latin commercium ‘trade, trading,’ from com- ‘together’ + mercium (from merx, merc- ‘merchandise’).

I think the archaic meaning of “commerce” has been used to screw the Indians. What do you think?

Scholars, politicians, lawyers, attorneys, judges and the man and woman in Main Street agree to disagree on the meaning of “commerce” when it involves Indians and Tribes.” The guilty conscience is overwhelming.

The guilt associated with land grabbing and the passage of legislative enactments (statutes) like the Homestead Act of the 1860s which replaced, displaced, misplaced, and disqualified the 1537 papal bull (Sublimus Deus which mandated respect for native rights); 1763 Royal Proclamation (German George III made sure the Crown and its colonial officers respected native rights) and the 1787 Northwest Ordinance (which also mandated native land rights and Native rights) is well noted today by all and sundry. Those who are not born as yet, already know what happened, and is still happening.

Scholars point to the Continental Debates and the The Federalist Papers to prove that Article IX of the Articles of Confederation that bound the original 13 colonies granted the federal government power to the states’ over Indians when the federal government was established. The Anti-Federalists doubt so. As does Justice Clarence Thomas of the SCOTUS.

My take is straightforward: IF the Indians and Tribes are inherently sovereign, no state or federal government can claim plenary (unqualified, absolute) power over them. Meaning, you cannot, ought not, should not, must not make any laws that fetters the inherent sovereignty.

The Indian Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate commerce (buying and selling of goods and services) with Indian nations. NOT to make laws against them, for them, or with them; control their affairs; or otherwise tyrannize or terrorize Indians and Tribes. Am I to believe that bad syntax and grammar allows the federal government to have sexual relations with Indians and Tribes as the archaic term provides in the online dictionary’s definition, and that it is OK to screw them wholesale?

Schizophrenia?

Starting with Talton v Mayes, 1896 (federal laws and the US Const. have no application or applicability to Indians of Tribes….you remember), tribal sovereignty has endured many spins and twists yet to be cured. But common law aside, the power to tweak a law, spin it at will, miscast, misquote and misguide the “Indians not taxed” un-repealed grant cannot be taken lightly if this is what the founders, framers and ratifiers intended right in the beginning. There is NO argument as to their intention.

It is wholly suspect that a judiciary be given the power to interpret a Treaty which the President entered into with Indians and Tribes. Article 2, section 2, clause 2 of the U.S. Const. grants the POTUS the power “to make Treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate. . .” no mention of Jack the Ripper, Charles Manson, Rev Al Sharpton or the SCOTUS for advice and consent, right ??? If the intenders, framers, funders and ratifiers intended the judiciary to be consulted, they would have said so in Art. 2, sec. 2, cl. 2, right or am I right ???

SO, what’s this nonsense about the SCOTUS interpreting or declaring a Treaty law? Is the POTUS too busy containing ISIS and its oilfields ???

Title 25 United States Code (INDIANS) and the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, Indian Child Welfare Act are all all unnecessary for an inherent sovereign. This includes the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that “grants” Indian Tribes the power to build casinos on their own land !! The nerve of the government !!

See, I told you – our Constitution and the Bill of Rights mean nothing because they are dysfunctional and inoperative. They mean nothing. They can be slapped down in federal courts with the “constitutional avoidance” doctrine.

The use of the term “plenary power” is nowhere to be found in the text of the U.S. Constitution when it involves Indians and Tribes. Congress has assumed this absolute and unqualified (plenary) power just because it has the power to regulate commerce with Indian nations.

“Implicit divestiture” is another term often used by Congress to erode Indian sovereignty. The SCOTUS uses this self-centered term to detetrmine the sovereignty of Indians and Tribes. WHERE the dickens did the SCOTUS get this power from? It is certainly NOT in any federal law or the U.S. Constitution !!!

Another morally hazardous term is “trust relationship.” It is a “legal obligation under which the US has charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust toward Indian tribes (Seminole Nation v. U.S., 1942). The issue was first discussed in 1831 when Cherokee Nation v. Georgia was decided. The federal government has promised, assured and guaranteed that it will protect treaty rights, land rights, assets and all other resources of Indians and Tribes. HAS IT done so ????

Chief Justice innovated the “domestic dependent nations and wards of the federal government” doctrine in 1832 in the Worcester v. Georgia case which underscored tribal sovereignty. Judge-made law (common law) reigns supreme till today. Is this civilized behavior to erode and destroy first principles of lawful rights contained in all the great literature covering eternal law, God’s Law, natural law, and positive law?

No matter what is said and done, Indians and Tribes will never be free until and unless they acquire, ordain and establish POLICE POWER.

The outrage and the rage will continue with a pliant judiciary, an amok Congress and a Shiite in the White House.