Thank you Peter. Thanks for linking to your book as well. When people point out connections it helps one feel they are on the correct path, or at least a worthwhile path.
Well, there might be further connections, but I mainly just meant that we both seemed to think that using Schmitt could shed some light on nefarious happenings of the state that otherwise might not seem connected.
Yes. The framework of US anti-Indian law was created (and exists today) as an "exception"... the foundation doctrines were simply declared by the US Supreme Court; they create a space outside of normal "law", a space of political domination. The exception was simultaneously the announcement of a US claim to "sovereignty" over the continent. Thus, Schmitt is right on target.
Thank you Tobin!
Important insights here!
My book, "Federal Anti-Indian Law: The Legal Entrapment of Indigenous Peoples" (Praeger, 2022)
uses Schmitt's"exception" to demonstrate how US "sovereignty" arose from and depends on a domination of Original Peoples.
https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/federal-antiindian-law-9781440879210/
Thank you Peter. Thanks for linking to your book as well. When people point out connections it helps one feel they are on the correct path, or at least a worthwhile path.
Not sure I can connect the dots. Can you expound a little?
Well, there might be further connections, but I mainly just meant that we both seemed to think that using Schmitt could shed some light on nefarious happenings of the state that otherwise might not seem connected.
Yes. The framework of US anti-Indian law was created (and exists today) as an "exception"... the foundation doctrines were simply declared by the US Supreme Court; they create a space outside of normal "law", a space of political domination. The exception was simultaneously the announcement of a US claim to "sovereignty" over the continent. Thus, Schmitt is right on target.
Thanks. I think I see it clearer now.