No

Constitutionally Required Oath Of Office Ignored by Most and

Public Trust Almost a Thing Of The Past

Concerning Government Service

Our U. S. Constitution requires members of the U. S. Senate and House of Representatives, as well as the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers of the United States and of the several States, to be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution. Many other governmental jobs, at all levels government, require a similar oath of office requiring the incumbent to support the Constitution and their particular State Constitution. This requirement is found in Article VI, clause c, of the Constitution. Our questions are, is this requirement failing and, Why?

The term Public Trust is used to denote the responsibility added to public service by virtue of the Constitutional requirement, and where applicable employer required, oath of office requiring the incumbent of such a position to support the constitution involved and the special relationship between the citizens and their governments. This responsibility requires such officers and employees to place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws and ethical principles that exclude private gain and activities that are repugnant to the Constitution, and of course, any state constitution involved. These requirements are designed to ensure that all citizens can have confidence in the integrity of the Federal Government and other state and local government concerned. Again our questions are, is this requirement failing and, why?

Since this series is about the American Indian Dilemma, here is a short list of UNCONSTITUTIONAL END RESULTS OF FEDRAL INDIAN PROGRAMS that demonstrates what a majority of Senators and Representatives can do over a period of decades, by passing laws that were the first basic laws and subsequent laws permitting these unconstitutional end results to take place, were in fact repugnant to our Constitution, at first, and today. Needless to say these examples start giving us the answers to part of the above questions—in the positive. Those unconstitutional end results of federal Indian programs include,

Certain Indian tribes both tax and governmentally regulate citizen and businesses residing and or in business within original or former exterior boundaries of Indian reservations. This is a violation of Article IV, section 4, of the U. S. Constitution. Tribal governments are not Republican in Form.
The U. S. Government is specifically and to the exclusion of all other religions, protecting and supporting Indian religion (for American and Alaskan Indians) through the authority of Public Law 95-341, 95^th Congress, approved August 11,1978, and other federal actions. This violates the First Amendment of our Constitution.
The U. S. Government is specifically and to the exclusion of all other cultures, protecting, supporting and the enhancement of Indian culture (for American and Alaskan Indians) through the authority of the Concurrent Resolution (100^th Congress 2cd Session, H. Con. Res. 331) and other federal action. This legal recognition of a special status for a specific class of citizens violates the equal protection clause of our Constitution to begin with.
Since the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, the U. S. Government has owned and or held in trust lands for the use of certain American citizens of certain American Indian descent. The federal land acquisition for Indian tribes (this include Alaskan Indians) since the 1924, has escalated geometrically over the years and when coupled with other federal Indian programs and benefits, passed by the Congress and or established by the other elements of the federal government, great dissention and conflict has developed between tribal governments along with their supporters (the Indian Industry) and other citizens and Constitutionally recognized governments of the U. S. of A. .There is a distinct absence in our Constitution and other early documents of our history, of any power being delegated to the federal government to own and hold in trust any lands for the use of any subdivision (like ethnic, racial, political etc.) of our citizenry.
The U. S. Government is specifically and to the exclusion of all other ethnic, racial and political groups, protecting certain American citizens of American Indian descent and their tribes as guardians protecting its wards, through what the federal government has conceived, fabricated and follows as a trust doctrine.. a duty the federal government owes this particular group of American citizens, stemming from certain treaties and dicta from chief Justice John Marshall’s early decision, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 US 1 (1832). In truth there is a complete lack of delegated power and authority or even a hint of such delegation, from the several states to the federal government through the Constitution and or the Articles of Confederation. It is federal fabrication without Constitutional authority. The assumption that the old kingly and sovereign duty called parens patria, indeed operational under King George lll, was somehow passed on in the common law to the colonies or to the several states through the treaty with King George lll, is both absurd and false.

In very simple terms those oath taking officials who voted for the federal Indian programs at first and since the original bills, that have caused these unconstitutional end results have and are in violation of their oaths of office and indeed failed to live up to the public trust incumbent in their jobs. Their names are still in the records, many are alive and they need to be held accountable for their trespass of the right of we citizens that have been burdened by their failure to comply with their oaths of office and public trust.

The most heinous and current example of Congressional oath takers violating their oaths of office and the public trust is found in the newly submitted U.S. Senate Bill.578 and House Bill 2242, both bills are the same and are Tribal Government Amendments to the Homeland security Act of 2002. The sponsors of the bills, 4 Senator and currently 28 House members, are clearly trying to make Federally Recognized Tribes equal to State Governments and legitimate entities to the federal government… all without Constitutional authority to do so. Although each part of these bills contain unconstitutional request, the following section, found in both bills, is the most frightening to the concerned citizen.

"SEC. 13. CONGRESSIONAL AFFIRMATION AND DECLARATION OF TRIBAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES. (a) IN GENERAL- For the purpose of this Act, Congress affirms and declares that the inherent sovereign authority of an Indian tribal government includes the authority to enforce and adjudicate violations of applicable criminal, civil, and regulatory laws committed by any person on land under the jurisdiction of the Indian tribal government, except as expressly and clearly limited by--(1) a treaty between the United States and an Indian tribe; or (2) an Act of Congress. (b) SCOPE- The authority of an Indian tribal government described in subsection (a) shall-- (1) be concurrent with the authority of the United States; and (2) extend to--(A) all places and persons within the Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code) under the concurrent jurisdiction of the United States and the Indian tribal government; and (B) any person, activity, or event having sufficient contacts with that land, or with a member of the Indian tribal government, to ensure protection of due process rights." [Emphasis added]

The sponsors of these bills are without question violating their oaths of office and making a mockery of the public trust.

The State of Washington presents us with one of the best examples of oath takers violating their oaths and the public trust through the state legislatures acceptance and dealing with proposed legislation to make tribal police equal in authority with all state and local police officers. One of the Tulalip tribal leaders and recently elected Washington State Representative for the 38^th Legislative District, John McCoy, is the key person behind House Bill 1936, " Tribal Law Enforcement Act of 2003". McCoy is joined by three other co-sponsors, Representatives Carrell, O’Brien and Lovick.This bill is loaded with incorrect statements, unconstitutional baggage and is in direct conflict with the law of the land. Here is a sample of one of the sections proposed.

NEW SECTION. Sec. The legislature finds a need for tribal law enforcement officers to exercise the laws of the state of Washington over non-Indian persons while those persons are on tribal lands or reservations to efficiently deal with criminal activities conducted by those who would threaten the peace and safety of Indian communities through their actions. The legislature further finds that allowing tribal law enforcement officers to exercise such limited powers over non-Indian persons in Indian country, as defined by federal law, is necessary to protect all Washington citizens through the equal application of the laws of tribal governments and the laws of the state of Washington. The legislature intends to balance the common interests of the state of Washington and tribal governments to provide basic police services in the effort to maintain peace and social order, and provide for the more efficient use of available resources by agencies responding to crimes and incidents that occur in Indian country.

The four representatives sponsoring this bill are attempting to get the Washington State Legislature to pass a bill, that if enacted, would produce legislation that would produce unconstitutional end results and conflict with the law of the land. There is no more positive evidence of these elected officials violating there oaths of office and ignoring their public trust duty than this proposed bill.

Concerning Political Parties

There is one more playing field involved here and that is the political parties and their elected or appointed officers that take oaths of office and have a public trust duty at local, state and national levels. Concerning the American Indian Dilemma, the best example of both parties violating their oaths of office and their public trust, is demonstrated in the above noted examples of unconstitutional end results of Federal Indian Programs both parties voted in and continued to support. Their treachery in supporting actions or condemning actions that in the end, result in unconstitutional end results of a Federal Indian Program, bring into question the political parties understanding of the Oath of Office requirement and the Public Trust obligations.

Conclusion

As to the questions raised in the first two paragraphs, it appears to this writer that both the Oaths of Office and Public Trust duty are not being met when it comes to considering the American Indian Dilemma. As to what to do about it, it is suggested that the public wake up, read and learn all you can about these matters, and join groups that are willing to hold our elected and appointed leaders accountable for their misconduct in this matter. They have trespassed upon our individual Constitutional rights long enough.

John A. Fleming

July 4, 2003