4 ms·
I understand the to the winner go the spoils...lose a war, regardless of who declared or started it and there goes your land. Human history...but I also think t
by onetimemanytime 6y ago
I understand the to the winner go the spoils...lose a war, regardless of who declared or started it and there goes your land. Human history...but I also think that treaties made at the time should be honored.
Apparently Congress can unilaterally change the treaties, as per another SCOTUS decision in https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/187us553 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/187us553
In a unanimous decision, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and upheld the Congressional action. The Court rejected the Indians' argument that Congress' action was a taking under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice Edward D. White reasoned that matters involving Indian lands were the sole jurisdiction of Congress. Congress therefore had the power to "abrogate the provisions of an Indian treaty," including the two-million acre change. Justice John M. Harlan concurred in the judgment.
- room500 6y agoIf Congress cannot, who can? I think treaties must be able to be reneged. And since Congress is signing the treaties, they should also have the power to renege. Now there might be consequences for those actions (the counterparty might attack you, your allies may no longer trust you, etc) and those consequences are what keeps treaties stable. The issue here is that the other party (Native Americans) has no power to enforce the treaty... But IMO, that is a public outrage issue and not a Constitutional issue.
- onetimemanytime 6y agoIsn't a treaty signed and agreed upon both sides? Why should one side unilaterally change the agreed one ?