An example of how Tribal Lands are affected by the unconstitutional use of the emminent Domain Act

Notes on Dakota Access Pipeline and Eminent Domain.

A State Department report on the pipeline that was issued under the Obama administration found that there would be 3,900 direct construction jobs if it was built over one year, or 1,950 if the work was spread over two years.

Once the pipeline opens it would require only 35 full-time permanent jobs to run it, and 15 full-time temporary jobs, according to the state department report. TransCanada, the company seeking to build the pipeline, does not dispute those numbers.

The Eminent Domain, public interest requirement can not be fulfilled by a creation of temporary job creation nor the creation of only 35 permanent jobs.

Treaties and Tribal Nations (Indian Nations) by treaty language.

A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same.[1]

Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law.[2]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty

31 U.S. 515

Worcester v. Georgia ()

The Cherokee Nation, then, is a distinct community occupying its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves, or in conformity with treaties and with the acts of Congress. The whole intercourse between the United States and this Nation, is, by our Constitution and laws, vested in the Government of the United States.

Justice Marshall in writing the opinion for the court, included portions of the Treaties, specifically the Treaty of Holston was negotiated in July, 1791, top justify and explain the stance the Court was taking in this historic case.

Marshall was complete in his assessment of the Cherokee being a separate sovereign nation in his inclusion of this portion of the treaty of Holson and what the treaty language actually meant.

“ The third article contains a perfectly equal stipulation for the surrender of prisoners.

The fourth article declares that "the boundary between the United States and the Cherokee Nation shall be as follows: beginning," &c. We hear no more of "allotments" or of "hunting grounds." A boundary is described, between nation and nation, by mutual consent. The national character of each, the ability of each to establish this boundary, is acknowledged by the other. To preclude forever all disputes, it is agreed [p556] that it shall be plainly marked by commissioners to be appointed by each party; and, in order to extinguish forever all claim of the Cherokees to the ceded lands, an additional consideration is to be paid by the United States. For this additional consideration, the Cherokees release all right to the ceded land forever.

By the fifth article, the Cherokees allow the United States a road through their country, and the navigation of the Tennessee river. The acceptance of these cessions is an acknowledgement of the right of the Cherokees to make or withhold them.

By the sixth article, it is agreed on the part of the Cherokees that the United States shall have the sole and exclusive right of regulating their trade. No claim is made to the management of all their affairs. This stipulation has already been explained. The observation may be repeated that the stipulation is itself an admission of their right to make or refuse it.

By the seventh article, the United States solemnly guaranty to the Cherokee Nation all their lands not hereby ceded.

The eighth article relinquishes to the Cherokees any citizens of the United States who may settle on their lands, and the ninth forbids any citizen of the United States to hunt on their lands or to enter their country without a passport.

The remaining articles are equal, and contain stipulations which could be made only with a nation admitted to be capable of governing itself.”

From 1684 to 1770 The Cherokee made treaties with England as well as English Colonies.

These treaties demonstrate that the Treaties with Indian Nations extend beyond those with the United States once it was established, and make them Internationally involved Sovereign Nations.

The Treaty of Holston and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Worcester v. Georgia define the relationship between the United States Government and not only the Cherokee Nation, but all Indian Nations established as Sovereign Nations.

The agreements made between Indian Nations with the United States Government were mutual agreements and can only be altered by the same course and process.

The US Government simply declaring that the Tribes are dependent on them does not lessen Tribal Nations status to any degree.

The “dependency” of Tribal Nations on the United States Government was not at the request of the Tribal Nations, but rather concessions made by the United States Government as a term of peace or some other provision made by treaty.

By treaty, any land belonging the any Indian Nation, is still the rightful land of the Sovereign Tribal Nation, not the United States.

Therefore any land taken from Indian Nations by the United States under the eminent domain clause of the U.S. Constitution and not by treaty has been unconstitutionally obtained and is in violation of Treaty Law. Both as practiced by the United States with Indian Nations (The Law of the land) and International Treaty Law.

It is therefore the right of Every Indian Nation to to reestablish their rights and claims over any and all unceded lands taken by the United States under the eminent domain clause of the US Constitution and to reestablish their control and jurisdiction of these lands.

Eminent Domain and Indian Nations.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Public Purpose

In the past, courts narrowly interpreted the Fifth Amendment to only allow the government to seize property for highways, government offices, military bases, and the like. Now, courts more broadly interpret the amendment to allow the government to seize property if doing so will increase the general public welfare, such as when the government uses eminent domain to seize private property to facilitate a private development that will raise the government's tax revenues. See Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S> 469 (2005).

In every sense the eminent domain clause applies to private lands held by American Citizens and in no case can be applied to the Lands belonging to Sovereign Nations.

The process of reclaiming unceded lands is as simple as enforcement of Tribal Jurisdiction.