Indigenous tribes fronting for patent trolls sue Apple

All common laws-state and federal-must come from the United States Constitution as the common law’s source of authority.

Your well written post outlines how this ‘fraud’ upon the Constitution works. However, your post leaves out the Constitutional core element that as of the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, they are U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” entitled to no more and no less than every other non-Indian U.S./State citizen. And, no where in the Constitution is the authority for politicians-state and federal-to regulate from womb to tomb the health, welfare, safety, benefits, capacities, metes and boundaries of a select group of U.S./State citizens because of their “Indian ancestry/race!” The hoax is believed.

What the fuck is your point? As other noted, we have other laws we live under, which can’t conflict with the constitution, but they don’t derive directly from it, they just can’t conflict.


The 1924 immigration act was a racist law meant to keep the “wrong people” out. It wasn’t a constitutional amendment.

That not explicitly banned by the constitution can be regulated by the federal government or the states. The constitution does not say that NO laws can be passed to govern our country. It stated that items not explicitly covered can be regulated by either the federal government and state/local governments. Not the same thing as not having the authority to pass laws, which is precisely what you’re suggesting here.

How you think our government works isn’t how it actually does work.

Native Americans are sovereign because first the American government continually pushed them off their lands, even while treating them as sovereign when it suited their purposes. The fact that the federal government acknowledges the relationship between the US and Native Americans is more than enough to support that.

The constitution is not some magical document that makes things true. It’s a document meant to be understood as a living one, flexible enough to accommodate historical change, among other things. We don’t live in the 18th century any more. We live in a very different time with very different lives, and our governing documents need to reflect that.






The Constitution is just the foundation for our laws. Like with any foundation it’s what you build upon but in of itself, it’s not very remarkable. It’s not very long and it’s frustratingly vague in many cases.

Maybe you should read it sometime.


Welcome to Boing Boing, comrade.


Read the second paragraph carefully.


did you read all the references? Did you follow the footnotes in all of those references?

Christ. Some people.

Boy needs to hit the books, and stop asking legal questions on a bulletin board.

tlwest: Every common law passed by politicians-state and federal-must
comply with the United States Constitution.

All common laws-state and federal-must comply with the United States Constitution…Title 25-INDIANS does not comply.

Suggest you brush up on the United States Constitution…no common law-state or federal-can be passed not in compliance with the Constitution…Title 25-INDIANS is not in compliance. You have provided nothing from the Constitution to prove your post is true.

I suggest you bush up on your reading comprehension, because I never stated or implied this.

I stand corrected

Where in this Article is the authority for ‘treaties’ with constitutency? As of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, they are U.S./State citizens. Provide the Amendment to change the Treaty Clause whereby We, the People, have treaties with other We, th People, because of the ‘others’ Indian ancestry/race?

Read this excerpted academic essay on ‘treaties’ very carefully and then re-visit your post:
The object of treaties is the regulation of intercourse with foreign nations, and is external."
An especially interesting piece of evidence supporting the conclusion that the Treaty Clause was intended and understood by the Framing and Ratifying Conventions not to authorize the President and Senate, by a treaty, either (a) to override the Constitution, in whole or in part, or (b) to make domestic law (as distinguished from governance of relations with foreign governments),
[Section 52.] “Treaties are legislative acts. A treaty is a law of the land. It differs from other laws only as it must have the consent of a foreign nation, being but a contract with respect to that nation . . . 2. By the general power to make treaties, the Constitution must have intended to comprehend only those objects which are usually regulated by treaty, and cannot be otherwise regulated. 3. It must have meant to except out of these the rights reserved to the States; for surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole Government is interdicted from doing in any way.”

Another fallacious statement is that a treaty “can override the Constitution;” which defies historical truth, as we have seen. A related and most preposterous allegation is that a treaty “can cut across the rights given the people by the constitutional Bill of Rights”–than which nothing could be further from the truth, partly for two reasons: the Constitution does not authorize any such treaty and, secondly, the people are, of course, given their rights by God and not by themselves through their own creation: the Constitution (including its Bill of Rights, or Bill of Prohibitions, Amendments). The quoted statement is farcical.

Again. Well said. The Plaintiff in your cited case simply has to make a Motion to the Court for the ‘tribe’ to produce the Amendment to the Constitution to make their ‘position’ of immunity true because of they are U.S./State citizens claiming to be a ‘sovereign Indian tribe’ and cannot be sued. No common law-state or federal-can be in conflict with the United States Constitution. The "Indian tribes’ assertion they are a ‘sovereign Indian nation’ has to flow from the Constitution whereby a select group of U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” are distinguishable because of their ‘claimed sovereignty!’

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed … An unconstitutional law is void. (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)”

If I’m Allergan transferring patents to the tribe, you bet your ass my transfer contract with the tribe includes an express waiver of tribal sovereign immunity and consent to suit in a non-tribal court in the event the tribe does something like put the patents in the public domain.

1 Like

Title 25 of the US Code is wholesale unconstitutional? I was going to spend some time writing a detailed reply to you, but it’s pretty clear that would be a waste of my time.

1 Like

Myths and Realities of Tribal Sovereignty: The Law and Economics of Indian Self-Rule

The last three decades have witnessed a remarkable resurgence of the American Indian nations in the United States. The foundation of this resurgence has been the exercise of self-government – sovereignty – by the more than 560 federally-recognized tribes in the U.S. In this study, we explore legal and economic dimensions of current perceptions of and debates over the nature and extent of tribal self-rule in the United States. Our objective is to clarify and illuminate by distinguishing between myth and reality. We address key threads of thought and assumption that pervade, accurately or inaccurately, discussions in the public policy arena. What emerges is a picture in which tribes do exercise substantial, albeit limited, sovereignty. This sovereignty is not a set of “special” rights. Rather, its roots lie in the fact that Indian nations pre-exist the United States and their sovereignty has been diminished, but not terminated. Tribal sovereignty is recognized and protected by the U.S. Constitution, legal precedent, and treaties, as well as applicable principles of human rights.

1 Like