Justice-as-Truth Legal Argument

April 22nd, 2012

Published on Dissident Voice, by W’Lawpsh, April 20, 2012.

  • 1. The Constitution precludes imperialism as against “foreign Nations and Indian tribes.”
  • 2. Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, 30 US 1, 20 (1831), settled their legal remedy for encroachment by the United States upon their territorial sovereignty is under the constitution’s original jurisdiction clause that exists for the purpose of adjudicating territorial jurisdiction disputes between the United States and other sovereign States exclusively in the US Supreme Court.    
  • 3. Although that Court refused to consider the Cherokees’ complaint on its merits (incidentally resulting in the genocidal “Trail of Tears”) the Court’s ground for its refusal was a critical error of legal draftsmanship on the part of the nation’s lawyer. He identified his client as a “foreign Nation” styled the Cherokee Nation instead of styling it an “Indian tribe.” The Court held that although an Indian tribe equally is a sovereign “State” it is not “foreign.”
  • 4. Subsequently Congress enacted the Appropriations Act of 1871, 25 United States Code §71¶1 and 28 United States Code §1251¶(b)(1), ostensibly restricting the original jurisdiction clause remedy to “foreign states” thus excluding Indian tribes.
  • 5. The ostensible repeal is ineffective since it does not comply with the constitution’s amendment clause and such compliance is the mandatory precondition to constitutional change. United States v. Lara, 541 US 193, 214, 227 (2004) (Justice Thomas).
  • 6. The Clerk of the Supreme Court nevertheless enforces the repeal as if it were the law by arbitrarily refusing to file tribal complaints challenging its constitutionality.
  • 7. The War Powers Act of 1973, 50 United States Code §1541, puts foreign Nations in the same position as Indian tribes by unconstitutionally repealing their territorial sovereignty too, so long as the President feels any given foreign Nation threatens the foreign policy or economy of the United States.
  • 8. These events have terminated “constitutional“ democracy which depends for its existence upon judicial review of the constitutionality of federal statutes. Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803) …


  • … 17. Whichever does not matter for present purposes since the critical emergency objective now is not to punish either the present Clerk or Chief Justice of the Court for knowingly causing the wars and genocides attributable to the unconstitutional imperialism, but to prevent those crimes against the constitution and humanity for the future.
  • 18. The only way speedily to achieve this objective is to get the Mahican and Mi’kmaq Tribes’ case-under-obstruction before the Supreme Court and to trust that, in the light of day, the Justices will want to be seen to do their clear and plain duty as defined by the supreme law, judicial oath and original jurisdiction clauses.
  • 19. Their alternative is to be seen not doing it; specifically, by “adhering to their [the United States's] Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” contrary to the treason clause of the Constitution.
  • 20. Certainly those Americans who for their own power, prestige and profit persist in playing “The Great Game” of imperialism are “Enemies” in the treasonable constitutional sense.
  • 21. Their success to date has terminated the existence of the United States as a constitutional democracy under the rule of law. That is the only right to exist that the country claims. Or can claim, pending a duly processed constitutional amendment.

(fullt text).

Comments are closed.