Tournament: D3 | Round: 1 | Opponent: UNT QS | Judge: Bricker

Conquest 1AC

Contention I: Doctrine of Conquest

The war powers are founded in the war against Native peoples.

Yoo, 1996 John C. "The continuation of politics by other means: The original understanding of war powers." California Law Review (1996): 167-305.

This view of the Constitution is also supported by early post-ratification history.
AND
, so long as the legislature acquiesced in the actions of the executive.

War powers are the foundation of federal domination of Natives.

Prygoski, 1997 Professor of Law, Thomas M. Cooley Law School. J.D., L.L.M. University of Michigan Law School. "War as the Prevailing Metaphor in Federal Indian Law Jurisprudence: An Exercise in Judicial Activism." TM Cooley L. Rev. 14 (1997): 491.

While the Indian Commerce Clause and the Treaty Power comprised the basis of much federal
AND
49 is the methodology of the Supreme Court in reviewing Indian law cases.

?

Further, War powers authority undergirds the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v M’Intosh – which legalized genocide.

Williams, 1992 Robert A.. E. Thomas Sullivan Professor of Law and American Indian Studies Harvard Law School, J.D. American Indian in Western Legal Thought : The Discourses of Conquest. Cary, NC, USA: Oxford University Press, USA, 1992. p 330.
The Doctrine of Discovery’s denial of "an absolute and complete title in the Indian
AND
that future acts of genocide would proceed on a rationalized, legal basis. 

?

Johnson v. M’Intosh is still good law – this creates paternalistic racist practices justified by notions of white superiority

EagleWoman, 2011 Angelique Townsend. ?Associate Professor of Law at University of Idaho College of Law "Bringing Balance to Mid-North America: Restructuring the Sovereign Relationships between Tribal Nations and the United States." U. Balt. L. Rev. 41 (2011): 671.

Eventually, Tribal Nations must leave the shadowland they have been relegated to by U
AND
mid-North America under the U.S. imposed trust relationship.

?

Pretending that these cases are "in the past" is deadly - locking tribes into the past and limits the legal rights of Native Peoples.

Fort, 2013 Kathryn. *  Staff Attorney, Michigan State University Indigenous Law and Policy Center; Adjunct Professor, Michigan State University College of Law. J.D., Michigan State University College of Law "The Vanishing Indian Returns: Tribes, Popular Originalism, and the Supreme Court." St. Louis University Law Journal 57.297 (2013): 11-06.

When it comes to Indian tribes, the Court is no longer expressly stating the
AND
and quite simply, limits the legal rights of tribes and tribal peoples.

?
The constitution’s grant of war powers locks in the idea of the "savage" as an enemy justifying expansive federal military power survives
Ablavsky, 2013 (Gregory, Sharswood Fellow in Law and History, University of Pennsylvania Law School; Doctoral Candidate in History, University of Pennsylvania, The Savage Constitution, Duke Law Journal, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2229957)

Soon after ratification, word of the new Constitution spread throughout Indian country. "
AND
that, for Natives, the history traced here has not yet ended.

Plan here

The United States Supreme Court should overrule Johnson v. M’Intosh on the grounds that the war powers authority does not justify federal control of Native lands.

Contention II: Solvency

Expunging conquest as a justification is necessary to solve.

Echo-Hawk, 2010 Walter. Walter Echo-Hawk is a Native American
AND
Denver, CO, USA: Speaker’s Corner, 2010. p 132.

This anomalous situation prompts a string of questions. What is this notion of conquest
AND
should tread lightly before applying sweeping notions of conquest to decide legal questions.

?

The precedent must be removed. Scalia - Bat signal ….

Echo-Hawk, 2010 Walter. Walter Echo-Hawk is a Native American
AND
Denver, CO, USA: Speaker’s Corner, 2010. p 132.

2. Overturn Johnson v. M’Intosh. The doctrines of discovery and conquest in
AND
the continent. The outcome of no case should turn on these legal fictions

?

Only by pointing to the contradictions – like justice Thomas can we solve the biopolitical erasure of native peoples.

Rifkin, 2009, Mark. Professor – UNC Greensboro Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania-2003 "Indigenizing Agamben: Rethinking Sovereignty in Light of the" Peculiar" Status of Native Peoples." Cultural Critique 73.1 (2009): 88-124.
As Agamben suggests in Means Without End, sovereignty "is the guardian who prevents
AND
and institutional structures of the settler-state. ~End Page 115~

?

Our method of history is particularly important in the context of settler colonialism.

Brenna Bhandar, 2007 " ’Spatialising History’ and Opening Time: Resisting the Reproduction of the Proper Subject," in Law and the Politics of Reconciliation, ed. Scott Veitch (Aldershot, Hampshire: Ashgate, 2007
How ’we’ do hisory’ is a political act and a decision about politics.
AND
the idea of reconciliation is compatible with this alternative political and ethical vision.

?

1AC – Our history key discursive entry point to solve sovereign violence.

Rifkin, 2009, Mark. Professor – UNC Greensboro Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania-2003 "Indigenizing Agamben: Rethinking Sovereignty in Light of the" Peculiar" Status of Native Peoples." Cultural Critique 73.1 (2009): 88-124.

Simply to present U.S. superintendence as a function of brute force would
AND
law in Indian policy—the operation of a geopolitical state of exception.

?

2AC - War power key – no commerce based justification.

Skibine, 2004 Alex Tallchief. Professor of law at Utah  J.D. from Northwestern University School of Law. served as Deputy Counsel for Indian Affairs for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.  "United States v. Lara, Indian Tribes, and the Dialectic of Incorporation." Tulsa L. Rev. 40 (2004): 47.

Justice Breyer’s Lara majority opinion put a heavy emphasis on the existence of congressional plenary
AND
and simultaneously maintain that the tribes are sovereigns in any meaningful sense. 69

?

Why care about Indian wars now?

Echo-Hawk, 2010 Walter. Walter Echo-Hawk is a Native American
AND
Denver, CO, USA: Speaker’s Corner, 2010. p 132.

In the winter of 1973, Native American Rights Fund (NARF) attorneys John
AND
of violence as part of the federal Indian policies of the nineteenth century.