Re: a form of affirmative action? (Re: oldest American skull found!

From: Erik A. Mattila (emattila_at_oco.net)
Date: 10/15/04 

Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:28:33 -0700

pwilson wrote:
> Erik A. Mattila emattila@oco.net wrote:
>
>>Well, you know, Tom, there is that quirk in US law - I think it's called
>>"lex talionis" (anything is legal that you have the power to enforce).
>>So when John Marshall told Andy Jackson that Indian Removal was illegal,
>>Jackson told him "then you raise your own army to enforce your own laws,
>>I'm removing the Indians." (or words to that effect.) But Jackson's
>>removal is described as a "political" act, not a "legal" act. I think
>>what pwil is not grasping is that any treaty, agreement or contract can
>>be violated by parties of the contract, so all parties concerned can be
>>said to be 'granting' the other rights by virtue of honoring the
>>agreement. It's what you call a "specious argument".
>
>
> I don't care what you call it, it still represents the reality of the
> world.

And you call me a "social pyschopath." What you are acknowledging is
simply that anyone can break the law and exercise power over others -
but does this "represent the reality of the world?" Hmmm...I think
you've overstated your case, to be polite about it.

Jackson's act may have been 'political' instead of 'legal', but
> the reality is that he had the Indians removed despite a valid treaty.

No treaty. Marshall's decision primarily addressed his interpretation
of the "rights of discovery" and secondarily addressed the seething
contest of "states rights v. federal rights" which eventually culminated
in the Civil War.

> Now, did the finer points of the definition of Jackson's act really
> matter to the Indians back then?

Of course it mattered. I can't believe you would ask that.

   Did it keep them from being removed?

That's really stupid. The whole issue is that Marshall failed because
Jackson acted illegally.

> And does it even matter now?

Of course it does.

Have there been any consequences because
> what Jackson did was 'political' rather than 'legal'?

Yes, Indian removal. Was that a rhetorical question?

  What you are
> failing to acknowledge, for some grotesque reason, is that there is a
> difference between armchair meditation on the legality of Indian treaties
> and the actual results reflected in the lives of the Indians.

You knew from the beginning of this example that Jackson broke the law,
so it could not be a matter of the legality of a treaty.

>

Relevant Pages