It is no exaggeration to say that Redthought.org and OriginalFreeNations.com provide some of the most cutting edge information about U.S. federal Indian law available anywhere in the world. McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) was heavily praised in most circles, as being a highly favorable ruling. Our discussion of the majority decision revealed the dark underside of the majority opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch. It turns out that the majority premised its decision on the extra or non-constitutional doctrine of congressional “plenary power,” and the doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination. Justice Gorsuch hid that doctrine in the title of an 1868 property law treatise by Emory Washburn. The chapter of the treatise that Justice Gorsuch cited, references “Christian nations” of Europe, the doctrine of discovery and Johnson v. McIntosh of 1823. This finding was the result of the amazing research abilities of Peter d’Errico.
For our next three-part event we intend to provide an in-depth discussion of the three cases that comprise “the Marshall Trilogy”: Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823), Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832).
You won’t want to miss our "Marshall Trilogy Series" beginning with our “Johnson v. McIntosh 101” event, which will take place on September 23rd, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. Pacific Time. The event will be facilitated by Peter d’Errico and Steven Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape). The event is designed for the hardened veteran of U.S. Federal Indian law, the lay person who has a basic curiosity about the subject matter, or an elected official or chairperson of a Native nation.
Regardless of who you are, you’ll learn more about the Johnson v. McIntosh during our two hour event than you would learn even if you were in a law school. This is because no law school has the time or inclination to spend two hours discussing the reasoning, vocabulary, and metaphorical structure of the domination patterning found in the Johnson ruling in the way we will. Our discussion will be based on a thirty year conversation that d’Errico and Newcomb have been having since 1989.
Part Two: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) is the second Supreme Court ruling in what is typically called “the Marshall Trilogy.” The question before the Court was whether the Cherokee Nation was a “foreign nation” in the context of the United States Constitution.
Part Three: Worcester v. Georgia (1832) is the third and final decision of the Trilogy. In the ruling, Chief Justice Marshall decided that the Cherokee Nation could not be ejected from their lands. Marshall said that the Cherokee Nation had the right to remain on their lands despite the desire by the “State of Georgia” to remove the Cherokee Nation from their lands that were surrounded by the State of Georgia.