On June 23, 2023, Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court: \u201cIn 1848, the United States\u00a0 won the Mexican-American War and acquired vast new territory from Mexico in what would become\u00a0 the American West. The Navajos lived within a discrete portion of that expansive and newly American\u00a0 territory.\u201d<\/p>\n
This was Justice Kavanaugh\u2019s opening statement so I would first like to ask him, \u201dWhat does Mexico\u00a0 have to do with the Navajos who have lived on this land for thousands of years?\u201d You can\u2019t get land\u00a0 title from someone who does not own it.<\/p>\n
This is exactly like Congressman Isaac C. Parker in 1872 when he wrote bill H.R. 2635 which said,\u00a0 \u201c\u2026The territory now in the possession of the several tribes (in Oklahoma)\u2026is a part of the Louisiana\u00a0 Purchase, by which soil and sovereignty passed to the United States\u2026this doctrine is clearly\u00a0 established in the case of Johnson vs. M\u2019Intosh\u2026\u201d This doctrine of which he spoke is the Doctrine of\u00a0 Discovery. This is the 1823 Supreme Court decision that cited \u201cPapal Bulls\u201d which were proclamations\u00a0 of the Pope granting land title to European explorers; never mind that there were people already\u00a0 living there.<\/p>\n
Perhaps Justice Kavanaugh can tell me, \u201cWhat does the Louisiana Purchase from France have to do\u00a0 with the Indians living in Indian Territory?<\/p>\n
Actually, Congressman Parker told us what the Doctrine of Discovery would do to the Indians who\u00a0 ended up there through Andrew Jackson\u2019s Indian Removal Act of 1830. He wrote, \u201c\u2026but we are\u00a0 equally clear the exercise of such power would involve the repeal or violation of all the treaties made\u00a0 with these Indians.\u201d And they call us \u2018Indian Givers\u2019!<\/p>\n
What we are dealing with is white supremacist colonial law and 200 years of Supreme Court Justices\u00a0 performing the juggling act of keeping either the Doctrine of Discovery or Indian Sovereignty up in the\u00a0 air at all times. It is either one or the other because holding both would cancel each other out.<\/p>\n
Justice Kavanaugh wrote, \u201cIn light of the treaty\u2019s text and history, we conclude that the treaty does\u00a0 not require the United States to take those affirmative steps. And it is not the Judiciary\u2019s role to\u00a0 rewrite and update this 155-year-old treaty. Rather, Congress and the President may enact\u2014and often\u00a0 have enacted\u2014laws to assist the citizens of the western United States, including the Navajos, with\u00a0 their water needs.\u201d<\/p>\n
The text and history was this: Gen. Carleton ordered Col. Kit Carson to kill every male Navajo capable\u00a0 of bearing arms who did not surrender and capture the women and children and hold them prisoners. In 1863 there were 301 Indians killed,87 wounded and 703 captured. Carson like Custer employed the<\/p>\n
\u201cwinter campaign\u201d , following pony tracks to villages and attacking at dawn. On January 23,1864 Carson reported from the Canyon de Chelly, \u2018Killed 23; captured 34; voluntary surrender 200; captured\u00a0 200 sheep\u2019. That year about 8,000 made the \u201cLong Walk\u201d To the Bosque Redondo to join the almost\u00a0 1,000 already there for four years of confinement at Fort Sumner.<\/p>\n
Justice Kavanaugh may not think it is the Judiciary\u2019s role to rewrite and update a 155-year-old treaty,\u00a0 but it is his role not to base his opinions on a 200-year-old racist, white supremacist colonial law.<\/p>\n
Steve Melendez, Paiute\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n President, American Indian Genocide Museum<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":1487,"parent":0,"template":"","yoast_head":"\n