Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

What did the US Supreme Court actually say in its Majority Opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma?

By Publius Huldah

Here is the majority opinion in McGirt v. Oklahoma [link].

The issue on appeal was whether the State of Oklahoma has criminal jurisdiction over the Creek Indians for crimes committed by them on Creek land. The Supreme Court said, “NO!”

The majority opinion lays out a shameful tale of Congress’ practice of breaking treaties with Indian nations; but points out that it [the Supreme Court] has previously held that Congress has the RIGHT to break Treaties with Indians!

The majority opinion recounts how to get the Creek Nation to give up their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the federal government promised them (in the Treaty of 1832) that they would have a permanent land in Oklahoma which would be theirs for as long as the Creek nation existed and over which they would have complete self-government.

But in the Major Crimes Act of 1885, Congress decided that they would exercise criminal jurisdiction over the Creeks for major crimes committed by them on Creek Land. And since the Supreme Court has said that Congress isn’t bound by the treaties it makes, we are all just fine with Congress’ unilateral change of mind on this point. 1

So the bottom line of the opinion is that while the federal government has criminal jurisdiction over the Creeks for “major crimes” committed on Creek land; the Oklahoma State government has no criminal jurisdiction over them. 2

Endnotes:

1 As to Congress’ shameful practice of breaking Treaties with Indian Nations (and the Supreme Court’s approval of that disgraceful practice), consider how God punished the Israelites by sending a 3-year famine because King Saul broke the Treaty Joshua had previously made with the Gibeonites. [See the excellent exposition of this event at gotquestions.org [link]]. So when the leaders of a nation commit public sins and the People go along with it, God punishes the People. See, “The Biblical Foundation of Our Constitution” [link].

2 Why should the federal government limit their wrongdoing to the Indians? Why not do it to all of us? And they did! E.g., when they passed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, they promised that Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) would be redeemable in gold. Then, the federal government changed their mind and for some 90 years, Americans haven’t been able to redeem FRN’s with gold. See more about the shenanigans respecting the Federal Reserve in “So you think Trump wants to get rid of the fed?” [link].

July 20, 2020 - Posted by | Creek Indians, McGirt v. Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Treaty Making Powers of the United States | , , , ,

5 Comments »

  1. You continue to do a most critical and important job, but please help us out a little on the macro level.

    Andrew

    Prepare for the French Solution in November

    This is nothing short of Treason by the Communist Democratic Party, mainstream media, and major corporations. I doubt that any level of Government has the will to stop the Marxists from creating anarchy as a pretext for forcing us into a Communist government………. https://newswithviews.com/prepare-for-the-french-solution-in-november/ by Andrew Wallace.

    Like

    Comment by Andrew Wallace | July 21, 2020 | Reply

    • Out of curiosity, why did you call your fix “the French Solution”?

      Like

      Comment by Blue Tail Gadfly | August 8, 2020 | Reply

  2. Perhaps you could touch on citizenship in regards to this topic. I was made aware that all natives were granted citizenship. Does citizenship not bring with it the idea that they would then be granted all the perks of citizenship as well as being bound by the laws associated with it? Is this like duel citizenship?

    Like

    Comment by Blake | July 21, 2020 | Reply

    • 1. As to Indian Citizenship generally: as far as I know, the facts alleged in this short paper are accurate: https://www.nps.gov/jame/learn/historyculture/upload/Native-American-Citizenship-2.pdf It recounts how the indigenous Americans (Indians) acquired US citizenship.

      And here is the actual Indian Citizenship Act of 1924! https://www.archives.gov/global-pages/larger-image.html?i=/historical-docs/doc-content/images/indian-citizenship-act-1924-l.jpg&c=/historical-docs/doc-content/images/indian-citizenship-act-1924.caption.html THAT is the proper length for a law: one paragraph!

      2. As to the criminal jurisdiction of the federal government over American Citizens throughout the Country at large: Constitutionally speaking, the criminal jurisdiction of the federal government is extremely limited. But for 100 years, Congress has been making pretended criminal laws over the American People for which they have no constitutional authority. So our federal prisons are filled with people convicted of unconstitutional “federal” crimes. I laid this out some years ago here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/us-criminal-code/

      3. Pursuant to Article IV, Sec. 3, clause 2, US Constitution, Congress had exclusive (complete) criminal jurisdiction over the “Territories” belonging to the United States. People of my age will remember the TV series “Gunsmoke” about US Marshall Matt Dillon who worked in the US Territory which later became the State of Kansas. So the US government had criminal jurisdiction over all of the usual crimes (murder, rape, robbery, cattle rustling, etc.) committed within the US territories.

      But as soon as those US Territories were formed into States, the US government lost its exclusive (complete) criminal jurisdiction over the area. That criminal jurisdiction was transferred to the new State.

      4. The US government did not EVER have – and still doesn’t have – such exclusive criminal jurisdiction over the lands which – by treaty – were ceded to the Creek Indians! For the US government to claim and exercise criminal jurisdiction over the Creeks living on Creek Land is as wicked as the US government’s claiming criminal jurisdiction over Canadians living in Canada who committed their crimes in Canada!

      So even though the Creeks are now US Citizens, the federal gov’t has no constitutional power to exercise criminal jurisdiction over Creek lands. The Creeks alone possess that power.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 21, 2020 | Reply

  3. Thank you for making this plain. When you explain, the light comes on. That’s what your experience and skill offer to us — a way to make it through the wilderness that is “law” in this day and age.

    LOVE! Trudy

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by trudy2015 | July 21, 2020 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: