User:JoseAntonioSanchez140/sandbox

Amst 140 Wiki Post

"On balance, when one weighs the historical and policy record, the Supreme Court, compared with the Presidency or the Congress, has the better track record of acknowledging tribal sovereignty upholding Indian treaty rights, and construing the distinctive nature of Indian rights (Wilkins, 2010)."

A Conscious Violation of Article II of the 1868 Treaty

By 1875 it appears that the Grant Administration had no intention of respecting Article II of the 1868 Treaty. Three letters between Lieut. General Philip Henry Sheridan, General Alfred Terry, and General William Tecumseh Sherman even suggest that the Grant Administration was "knowingly and secretly violating" it. In the first letter, P.H Sheridan describes the Presidents stance as being against the miner's occupation but that the military cease its resistance against them. He goes on to ask General Terry to "quietly cause the troops" under his command to "assume such attitudes." Within a few days, P.H. Sheridan describes the situation as having "gone along about as [he] had expected." and that his earlier request to keep U.S. troops from resisting the trespassing miners would "best be kept confidential." The Supreme Court, in its opinion delivered by Justice Harry Blackmum, describes the “Army’s withdrawal from its role as enforcer of the Fort Laramie Treaty” and that, given the resulting influx of miners into the area, the only “practical course was to secure to the citizens of the United States the right to mine the Black Hills for gold (U.S V. Sioux Nations of Indians).” U.S v Sioux Nations of Indians is therefore a result of the military's and Grant administration's conscious efforts to remove themselves as a force that would uphold the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868.

United States v. Sioux Nation, 448 U.S. 371, 100 S. Ct. 2716, 65 L. Ed. 2d 844 (1980).

Wilkins, David E. American Indian sovereignty and the US Supreme Court: The masking of justice. University of Texas Press, 2010.

Extra!

Cases of the "constitutional/category" are used to argue that the Supreme Court is the "tribes' most articulate and best friend."

An in depth study into 15 cases (1823 - 1992) regarding Indian Sovereignty and their outcomes, defined by judicial predispositions, identifies "a battery of disparaging and debilitatitng phrases that have limited or terminated the right of indigenous people as distinctive groups."

A Conscious Violation of Article II of the 1868 Treaty

''US. v Sioux Nation of Indians (1980)'' is unique for being the only one among the examined cases that is of a "constitutional/treaty category" and for being a victory that still perpetuated "several masks that have diminished the sovereignty of tribal nation without tribal consent (Wilkins, 2010)" thereby resulting in the resulting in the deadlock still seen today.

// The Sioux Nation and Indian Territory: The Attempted Removal Act of 1987