[ExI] new covid case rates

[Dan TheBookMan]

I'm not sure why you're bringing this up. I pointed to Indian [that
is, indigenous peoples in North America] removal as an example where
the Court ruled one way, but it didn't matter. The removal happened
with then president Andrew Jackson supporting it. My point in bringing
this particular example up was that it had a far reaching result: the
dispossession of thousands of people of their lands, basically
ethnically cleansing Georgia and other states of many of these people.
It also showed how even when the high court ruled in favor, the rest
of the federal government simply ignored this. So much for the power
of the Constitution and the Court to put a break on tyranny. Or is
your view that tyranny is fine as long as it happens to non-citizens?

And one need only look at later federal treatment of indigenous
peoples to see that the 1924 case to see that there was still abuse of
indigenous peoples. Again, a big blow to the view that the
Constitution restrains tyranny. Instead, it's basically a tool that
might be used for good or ill, depending on who's in power, public
opinion, and the wider culture.

Regards,

Dan

On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 2:11 AM spike jones via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> …> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat
>
> >…The Supreme Court also had some strange rulings with regard to indigenous peoples.
>
> US Constitution, Amendment 14, section 2, ratified 1868:
>
> Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed…
>
> Native Americans were not universally made US citizens until 1924.
>
> spike