imported post
Bear 45/70 wrote:
sudden valley gunner wrote:
I guess we might as well tear up that 200 hundred year old constitution while we are at it.
The Constitution is not a treaty with a foreign nation as the treaties with the indians tribes are. Then they were allowed to be US citizens but of course pay no taxes, just take our tax dollars if they stay on the rez. Oh and by this same treaty you want to keep, the US government was suppose to stop supporting the tribes 10 years after the treaty was signed, at least in the case of the Point No Point Treaty. Yet here we are still paying for a Bureau of Indian Affairs over 100 years later. The treaty also has a provision that says the President can null and void the thing just by signing a letter to that effect. Don't get me started on the fish and shellfish thing, the truth will piss you off as bad as it does me. This is not to mention the part of the treaty that says if an indian is caught drunk on the rez, just once he is suppose to booted off the rez for good, of course that never happens. Then of course there is the casino issue which again screws the white man. Oh and I know all this because not only have I read said treaty but I keep a copy to refresh my memory every once in a while.
And if you really believe treaties are never renegotiated, then you are too naive to be involved in this discussion.
Your paragraph is full of ignorance and hate. I guess lines like this in bold also make you a jerk. I heard this about you but was reserving judgment for myself. It is fine to disagree but that is uncalled for. And I find it funny that your points made have nothing to do with "this discussion". Which started out on a discussion of open carry on tribal lands. We have had many treaties that have lasted well over a hundred years like the treaty like the one signed with Canada in 1812 to disarm the great lakes area.
Indians weren't allowed to become U.S. citizens they were forced.
They do pay taxes, you are outright wrong on this. (Federal)
Just because you don't like your side of a treaty anymore doesn't mean you can change it. Both parties have to be up to negotiating it, if the U.S. breaks it than the Indians have cause for grievance and justification to war against U.S. citizens . And if you learn some history you can see that the "white man" has already continually changed the treaties to his advantage. Believe me many tribal members would love to fence off and border their original much larger lands that were granted in the treaties and keep the likes of you off. Becareful of what you wish for a re-negotiation might just take your land away and give it to a much larger Indian population.
The U.S. never figured tribes would survive and would either die off or be acclimated. This has not happened, they are now increasing in size.
How are casinos screwing the white man, that is laughable. If you don't like them don't go. Or lobby the government to make casinos legal for anyone to have and the "unfair advantage" goes away.
And you forgot the rules of this forum to cite.
There are not one treaty but many treaties with many sovereign nations.
I am going to ignore your stupid kick the indian off the rez for drinking comment because I doubt your racist ass would want the stereo-typical drunk Indian in town with you either. Plus it doesn't say kick off the rez so you might need to reread article 10 of that treaty. Because you are wrong.
Oh and the constitution states that it can be changed right in the constitution.
Here are some other treaties you might be up for re-negotiating:
Louisiana Purchase, Purchase of Alaska from Russia, Japan-U.S. security treaty, Oregon treaty of 1818, Adams-Onis treaty
of 1819, Treaty of Ghent 1814, Webster-Ashburton Treaty 1842, etc.
