The truth is the one previously identified by the far distant ancestors of the current generation North American Amerindians as they heard the trees screaming against the onslaught to eradicate them to make way for the permanent farmland and manufacturing facilities of the military industrial society of the newcomers, who disembarked from the ships dispatched by the great maritime powers of Europe to the brave New World. More recently this truth was re-identified and popularized by the former Vice President of the United States of America Al Gore in a 2006 documentary film directed by David Guggenheim, An Inconvenient Truth.


It is about Gore’s personal journey from ignorance of awareness of the catastrophic impact of modernity’s progressing of humans and their planet out of a condition of good health into a life threatening pathological state. Actually “state” could as easily be written with the “s” capitalized since the morbid condition is caused by the success of humans as social animals, the pinnacle from which we are poised to fall to the destruction of all we survey.


The SuperState constituted by the set of former constitutional democracies who have thrown off that too-confining mantle in favor of morphing into the unconstitutional empire of Euro-America is the greatest by far up with which the Earth has had yet to put, to bend the Churchillian never-ending-with-a-proposition phrase even father out of shape than it began.


The proposal is the one recently made by the complainants of the unconstitutional war and genocide of that SuperState in the titanic clash of Constitutional Democracy v. Unconstitutional Empire styled, for the purposes of independent and impartial third-party adjudication by the Supreme Court of the United States of America and its counterparts in Canada, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Russia and United Kingdom, as the Case of Mahican Tribe and Rick Vanguilder and Mi’kmaq Tribe and Gary Metallic v. Canada, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Russia, United Kingdom and United States.


The proposal is, that the empire of commerce’s judicial branch answer the burning constitutional question of jurisdictional law alone of Indian tribal sovereignty, specifically by addressing the conflict of laws as between the constitutions’ amendment, commerce, constitutional supremacy, defence, judicial oath and treaty clauses and their original interpretive precedents as a set on the one hand, and the regime of ordinary federal and international law inaugurated by the United States Congress’s Appropriations Act of 1871 as against “Indian tribes” and extended by its War Powers Act of 1973 to “foreign Nations” within the meaning of those words of legal art as used in the American constitutions’ commerce clause, as follows: Article I, §8, ¶3. “The Congress shall have power …To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”


When the set of constitutional clauses is read as a set as was settled to be necessary by the constitutive precedents regarding constitutional foreign policy in constitutional democracy’s formative years prior to 1871, it is apparent constitutional governments have the jurisdiction to regulate commercial relations with Indian tribes and foreign Nations subject to the treaty clause requirement that those others’ territorial sovereignty is protected and the defence clause condition that war can be undertaken against those others only in self defence to repel an invasion by them.


Commerce Clause. Article I, ¶3. “The Congress shall have power to…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”


Defence Clauses. Article I, §8, ¶1. "The Congress shall have power to…provide for the common defense…” ¶11. “To declare War. ¶15. “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”


Treaty Clause. Article II, §2, ¶2. “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”


In a constitutional democracy neither Congress, the President, the Judiciary nor any combination of them similarly is supreme, precisely because only the constitution is. The branches can not modify their own jurisdiction. Only the People can modify the conditions of government recorded by it. That is raison d’être of the amendment, constitutional supremacy and judicial oath clauses.


Amendment Clause. Article V. “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.”


Constitutional Supremacy Clause. Article VI, ¶2. “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”


Judicial Oath Clause. Article VI, ¶3. “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”


The precedents are many and leave no vestige of a doubt that Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts, Jr., was wrong when he decided without having considered them, for which reason his comment is per incuriam [for lack of information] and thereof of no weight for stare decisis purposes as a “precedent” binding upon courts, that “the central function of the Indian Commerce Clause, as we have said, is to provide Congress with plenary power to legislate in the field of Indian affairs.” United States v. Lara, 541 US 193, 200, 227 (2004).


More true to the constitution as written and previously settled by the blindsided governing precedents see US Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas in the same case [pp.214-27]. Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint, February 11, 2011, p.2 n.3, Document 2, Case Court Documents, Might is Not Right, http://mightisnotright.org/, in the Case of Mahican Tribe and Rick Vanguilder and Mi’kmaq Tribe and Gary Metallic v. Canada, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Russia, United Kingdom and United States:


"In 1871, Congress enacted a statute [Appropriations Act of 1871] that purported to prohibit entering into treaties with the ‘Indian nation[s] or tribe[s].’ 16 Stat. 566, codified at 25 USC §71. Although this Act is constitutionally suspect (the Constitution vests in the President both the power to make treaties, Art. II, §2, cl. 2...), it nevertheless reflects the view of the political branches that the tribes had become a purely domestic matter. To be sure, this does not quite suffice to demonstrate that the tribes lost their sovereignty...Federal Indian policy is, to say the least, schizophrenic.... I believe we must examine more critically our tribal sovereignty case law. Both the Court and the dissent, however, compound the confusion by failing to undertake the necessary rigorous constitutional analysis. I would begin by carefully following our assumptions to their logical conclusions and by identifying the potential sources of federal power to modify tribal sovereignty …I do, however, agree that this case raises important constitutional questions that the Court does not begin to answer. The Court utterly fails to find any provision of the Constitution that gives Congress enumerated power to alter tribal sovereignty...I would be willing to revisit the question."


In sum the inconvenient truth is that the planet including but not restricted to its humans direly is threatened by its humans and the modest proposal is that the judicial branch of the unconstitutional empire of commerce should reinstate the constitutional democracies the judicial branch previously converted into the empire by obstructing and ignoring the constitutional law as settled prior to 1871 in aid of giving effect to the manifestly unconstitutional Appropriations Act of 1871 so the legal profession could get away with unconstitutionally certifying private titles to lands not proven to have acquired by their government either by treaty or a just war of self defence from the constitutionally protected sovereign Indian tribes.


The procedural mechanism specifically established by the constitutional law of the United States for the resolution of such jurisdictional disputes between sovereign bodies politic such as Indian tribes or foreign Nations and the SuperState is the constitutional question procedure invoked by a tribal or national “public Minister” within the meaning of the American constitution’s original jurisdiction clause: Article III, §2, ¶2. “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls...the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” For the early constitutional history of this third-party jurisdiction that devolved upon the US Supreme Court from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (UK) see, Joseph H. Smith, Appeals to the Privy Council from the American Plantations, Columbia University Press, New York, 1950, discussed at Document 2, Case Court Documents, Might is Not Right, http://mightisnotright.org/, supra, pp. 20-21.


That therefore is the procedure adopted by the complainants in the pending Case of Mahican Tribe and Rick Vanguilder and Mi’kmaq Tribe and Gary Metallic v. Canada, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Russia, United Kingdom and United States by the public ministers of those tribes, Rick Vanguilder and Gary Metallic, who swear in the supporting documents to that status and the previous recognition of it as being vested in their respective ancestors in Indian Treaties of 1724 and 1776. Document 2, supra, p.5 n.4, p. 30; APPENDIX B 1724 Massachusetts/Mahican Treaty, p. 31a; APPENDIX C 1776 Massachusetts/Mi’kmaq Treaty, p. 35a. See also, Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, 30 US 1 (5 Pet.) (1831), summarized under the sub-heading “Determinative Precedent” in Document 8, supra, p. 1, ¶4 as follows: “[Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia] settled Tribes are States (Johnson, J, dissenting) albeit not “foreign” (Thompson and Story, JJ, dissenting) and, since the Cherokee complainant explicitly 2 relied exclusively upon the reference in the General Jurisdiction Clause, Art. III, §2, ¶1, to disputes “between a state [Georgia] and foreign states [Cherokee Nation],” in the result Marshall, CJ, held [p.20], "this court cannot interpose; at least in the form in which those matters are presented.” The 2011 Indian tribal sovereignty case brought by Gary Metallic and Rick Vanguilder addresses and corrects the procedural law defect of form that sunk the Cherokee Nation in 1831.


Particulars of the Case of Mahican Tribe and Rick Vanguilder and Mi’kmaq Tribe and Gary Metallic v. Canada, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Russia, United Kingdom and United States that explicitly has been prepared to obtain an expeditious answer pursuant to the US Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to the constitutional question of Indian tribal sovereignty, the judicial branch’s obstructing and ignoring of which since enactment of the Appropriations Act of 1871 is the cause of the war and genocide attributable to extra-constitutional commercial empire that threatens humankind and the planet, are at W’Lawpsh, Might is Not Right, http://mightisnotright.org/. An accessible narrative account of the central issue in several currently debated political contexts is available from reading in publication sequence the following articles published by Reader Supported News each of which is also reproduced at the Articles page of http://mightisnotright.org/:


INDEX TO PUBLIC INFORMATION ARTICLES ON THE TOPIC OF:

Constitutional Democracy vs. Unconstitutional Empire


Article 1. W'Lawpsh, “Everybody knows war in self defence is constitutional but otherwise not,” Reader Supported News, September 1, 2011.

Article 2. W'Lawpsh, “The futility of political reform without judicial reform,” Reader Supported News, September 6, 2011.
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/21-21/7328

Article 3. W'Lawpsh, “Is the revolt in Libya implementing the North American genocide model?,” Reader Supported News, September 11, 2011.
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/21-21/7403

Article 4. W'Lawpsh, “The Insidiousness of the Unwitting Defence of Empire," Reader Supported News, September 22, 2011, http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/197-197/7542

Article 5. W'Lawpsh, “Hitler, the Mime in the Mirror," Reader Supported News, September 22, 2011, http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/21-21/7534.

Article 6. W'Lawpsh, “Defending the defender of the constitution, Justice Clarence Thomas," Reader Supported News, September 22, 2011.
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/256-justice/7541

Article 7. W’Lawpsh, "Wall Street? Surely! But why not the street in front of the Supreme Court, where the decision in the matter of Constitutional Democracy vs. Unconstitutional Empire has actually to be made?,” Reader Supported News, September 22, 2011, http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/256-justice/7547

Article 8. W’Lawpsh, “The Legal Argument on Behalf of Constitutional Democracy in the Case of Constitutional Democracy vs. Unconstitutional Empire,” Reader Supported News, September 24, 2011.
[Insert Citation

Article 9. W’Lawpsh, “A Modest Proposal about an Inconvenient Truth, and an Index,” Reader Supported News, September 24, 2011.
[Insert Citation]



If having read and reflected upon what so far has been written you are inclined to help advance the cause of constitutional democracy and correspondingly stop its suppression by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States who by genocidal chicanery refuses to put the Case of Mahican Tribe and Rick Vanguilder and Mi’kmaq Tribe and Gary Metallic v. Canada, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Russia, United Kingdom and United States to the Court for determination on the ground the federal law precludes the constitutional question of its constitutionality, please contact me at the address shown at the Contact page of the website http://mightisnotright.org/ .


Thank you for reading.