The public should know the following true facts regarding Cayuga Indian sovereignty and its state or federal rights. It has all been recorded in the 1926 International Tribunal, whose ruling is above the U.S. Supreme Court and 100 percent effective today. Only the U.S. Constitution is superior and above it. (It was used in the Cayuga case, “Brief in Opposition,” footnote 8) The following are direct quotes from the Tribunal.
State or Federal Rights:
“We must hold that the treaty of 1795 was a contract of the State of New York and that it was not a contract on a matter of Federal concern or in which the Federal Government has an interest.”
“Neither in form nor substance was the Treaty of 1795 a Federal treaty; it was a contract of New York with the respect to a matter as to which New York was fully competent to contract. In form it is exclusively a New York contract.”
On Cayugas' Sovereignty:
“The power which has sovereignty over the land has always been the sole judge of its relations with the tribe within its domain. So far as an Indian tribe exists as a legal unit, it is by virtue of the domestic law of the sovereign nation within whose territory the tribe occupies and so far as the law recognizes it.”
My Opinion:
New York state has complete authority over the Cayugas and is a state right backed up by the 10th Amendment. (State Rights) The feds haven't any authority over the Cayuga. Their sovereignty is a myth. New York state has title to all their reservation land. The Cayuga's sovereignty is only what New York state has allowed or given them.
From Dr. Warren Hickman's article, “A Cayuga Chronicle,” available on the Upstate Citizens for Equality web site, The Power of International Law:
“These are treaties ratified by the United States Senate. The Tribunal decision was therefore binding on the United States and that decision was based on the determination that the ”treaties“ of 1789, 1790 and 1795 were a merged covenant. To consider otherwise at this point in time can be construed as a violation of international law as well as domestic law.” (May our lawyers and media take note.)
Harry Pettingill Jr.
Seneca Falls
“We must hold that the treaty of 1795 was a contract of the State of New York and that it was not a contract on a matter of Federal concern or in which the Federal Government has an interest.”
“Neither in form nor substance was the Treaty of 1795 a Federal treaty; it was a contract of New York with the respect to a matter as to which New York was fully competent to contract. In form it is exclusively a New York contract.”
On Cayugas' Sovereignty:
“The power which has sovereignty over the land has always been the sole judge of its relations with the tribe within its domain. So far as an Indian tribe exists as a legal unit, it is by virtue of the domestic law of the sovereign nation within whose territory the tribe occupies and so far as the law recognizes it.”
My Opinion:
New York state has complete authority over the Cayugas and is a state right backed up by the 10th Amendment. (State Rights) The feds haven't any authority over the Cayuga. Their sovereignty is a myth. New York state has title to all their reservation land. The Cayuga's sovereignty is only what New York state has allowed or given them.
From Dr. Warren Hickman's article, “A Cayuga Chronicle,” available on the Upstate Citizens for Equality web site, The Power of International Law:
“These are treaties ratified by the United States Senate. The Tribunal decision was therefore binding on the United States and that decision was based on the determination that the ”treaties“ of 1789, 1790 and 1795 were a merged covenant. To consider otherwise at this point in time can be construed as a violation of international law as well as domestic law.” (May our lawyers and media take note.)
Harry Pettingill Jr.
Seneca Falls
Citizen
Hot Jobs
New! Off the Menu
The Citizens' Say
Post your comment - click hereThere are 3 comment(s)
Andy b wrote on Sep 24, 2008 12:56 PM:
demsarecrazy wrote on Sep 24, 2008 12:17 PM:
What about the fact that it is noted that the Cayugas were paid for the land several times. How does that factor in? Get a clue brew. "
brew1234 wrote on Sep 24, 2008 12:34 AM: