Accordingly with the Critical Race Theory the overtaking of Native American lands by the Crown and by the United States has no legal basis or any moral grounds since it has a racist background. Consequently most transaction deeds in America should be nullified accordingly to DEA or CRT pundits. Many of these pundits should move to their originating countries and they should be deported or jailed accordingly to their ideology for living and exploiting colonized lands. Likewise their academic degree or salaries should be confiscated because those universities where created and funded by slave owners on native American usurped lands.
Scholars that condemn “white colonialism” in an hypocritical way and use their academic position to propagate anti white or anti Jewish indoctrination should refund their salaries and should not be allowed to enter those premises because accordingly to their standards they are themselves colonizers that profiteer from colonizer institutions and governments. They are hiding the fact that the institutions that pay their salaries or grant them visas are built on native American “usurped” lands accordingly with their academic brainwash. For their agenda a white or Arab DEA professor can colonize New York whereas Jews that live in Jerusalem or Judea are regarded as “colonialists” or apartheid supremacists. They also hide the fact that there were more Jews in Jerusalem then Muslims in the first mandatory census (1922) before Jordanian soldiers ethnic cleansed the old city of Jerusalem in 1948 using British armament and military guidance.
Government can solve this problem by removing subsidies from institutions that hire academic staff that don’t pledge loyalty to the constitution as part of their contracts.
Another implication for these hypocrites, is that the ratification of the constitution by the states has no legal value since it was not ratified by the true and original land owners and the states were not legitimate entities since they were not composed and represented by the true land owners. Rather, the states were mainly represented by European descendant lawyers. Many state representatives that ratified and drafted the constitution were slave owners that abused their own declaration of independence principle that “all men are created equal” when relating to African American and Native Americans.
Accordingly with the CRT paradigm, all taxes collected by the federal government should be deposited in native American accounts since there shouldn’t be taxation without representation and the European settlers have no rights of living in native lands without their consent and without paying taxes to the original owners. The more extreme option would be to send all descendants of non Native Americans to the originating continents and after that draft a new constitution by native American descendants only which will set the rules on who should be allowed to live in America and what would be the price and criteria for immigration. The overtaking of the Native American lands was incorporated into federal law by chief justice John Marshall which coincidentally was a slave owner, in his controversial ruling in the Johnson v. M’Intosh case, 21 U.S. 543 (1823) – the foundational legal principle laid out in his opinion:
“that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession.”
The opinion incorporates the principles of the doctrine of discovery into United States law ignoring indigenous tribes rights. The doctrine give the exclusive rights of the discovering European people to acquire the soil from the Indians while ignoring the sovereignty of tribes resulting as a consequence of discovery and abusing the Indian right of occupancy and their moral precedence over European state and federal law. Under this doctrine, the Indians’ “title of occupancy” can only be conveyed to the discovering sovereign or by European treaty, statute, or executive order, which in turn can be usurped by the federal government. A number of academics and Indigenous rights activists have argued that Chief Justice John Marshall had real estate holdings that would have been affected if the case were decided in favor of Johnson.
This ruling is racist because it ignores the rights of inhabitants of these lands that existed before European set foot in America. Nevertheless, since John Marshall was the longest presiding supreme court justice in history his ruling serve as the cornerstone and precedent benchmark of the American justice system. To add insult to injury, chief Justice John Marshall created another tyrannical doctrine which is the judicial review doctrine. The judicial review gave a tyrannical tool that enables the supreme court to interpret or nullify laws accordingly with their agendas or whims. The judicial review doctrine is tyrannical because there is no judicial review on the judicial review and because it puts the supreme court above the other branches of government while enabling judicial activism and some say satisfying a control-freakness elitist attitude that may exist in the justice system.
Chief Justice Marshall in his opinion promotes a smear campaign on Native Americans depicting whole communities as having a dangerous behavior and culture which in turn “legitimize” the usurpation of their lands by European decedents:
“But the tribes of Indians inhabiting this country were fierce savages whose occupation was war and whose subsistence was drawn chiefly from the forest. To leave them in possession of their country was to leave the country a wilderness; to govern them as a distinct people was impossible because they were as brave and as high spirited as they were fierce, and were ready to repel by arms every attempt on their independence. What was the inevitable consequence of this state of things? The Europeans were under the necessity either of abandoning the country and relinquishing their pompous claims to it or of enforcing those claims by the sword, and by the adoption of principles adapted to the condition of a people with whom it was impossible to mix and who could not be governed as a distinct society, or of remaining in their neighborhood, and exposing themselves and their families to the perpetual hazard of being massacred. Frequent and bloody wars, in which the whites were not always the aggressors, unavoidably ensued. European policy, numbers, and skill prevailed. As the white population advanced, that of the Indians necessarily receded. The country in the immediate neighborhood of agriculturists became unfit for them. “
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/21/543/
In retrospect accordingly with contemporary values, the claim that it “was impossible to mix” with Indians is a racist statement as well as the claim that they were supposedly “fierce savages”. Those are the values that whitewashed the manifest destiny adopted by the Democrat party in those days in the 19th century.
John Marshall was appointed by a president Adams after losing the elections while in a transitional stats. This shady move was aimed to preserve the federalist mechanics of big government that can use sedition acts and abuse state rights or invent new taxes. The federalist ideas used the excuse of increasing the overreach of the federal government on expense of state governments and individual rights by expanding the federal system using federal banking and limiting the freedom of speech with laws like the sedition act and so on. Adams lost the election of 1800 because the people noticed that the federalist system is tyrannical. To preserve the mechanics of the federalist big government scheme that, Adams packed the courts with Federalist judges and appointed Chief Justice John Marshal since they viewed the encroaching overreach as a tool to fight the European empires while increasing their party political power. Marshal was previously Adams’ state secretary and a federalist enthusiast. The tyranny of John Marshal was exposed when he didn’t recuse himself from the Madbury Vs. Madison case even while having a conflict of interests as the person who controversially appointed Madbury.
Conclusion
In hindsight, the Judicial review, the discovery doctrine, the commerce clause, the elastic clause and the supremacy clause are tools with which federalist or progressive judges can wiggle laws selectively using double standards while increasing their power and exerting control over the other branches of government. These tools enable the expansion of big government, increase the judicial inflated bureaucracy, manipulate the power of the purse, increase the overreach of regulation and taxation, help federal intervention in state law, and foster more government control over the means of production, trade, free speech and transportation which paradoxically are the very exact dangers that the constitution tried to prevent.
