Skip to main content

View Diary: Indians 101: The Black Hills, 1950 to 1985 (16 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  again, don't disagree. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ojibwa, KenBee, ER Doc

    the law and reality don't match for most people who deal with government on issues across the board.

    but on the narrow issue we are discussing:

    If a deal could be made that allows them to take it without agreeing that they had sold the Black Hills, a vote might produce a majority in favor. In other words, the money would be viewed as compensation for the taking, but not payment for it, if you catch my meaning. Complicated legalities, as is all Indian law. I doubt Congress would accept such a deal.

    It would not constitute a taking if the black hills had been sold. The 5th Amendment would not be involved if this was a  sale. The Supreme Court held it was a taking under the 5th amendment that expressly uses the words "just compensation."

    I'm not saying that racist lawmakers won't try to nix such a deal. But to argue against case law, constitution, and this supreme court decision that this was a sale and not "just compensation" would be too easy to knock down.

    Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Mohandas K. Gandhi

    by Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse on Thu Jan 12, 2012 at 12:47:51 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site