Honorable President Elect Trump,

I ask that you review a supreme court decision made in 1903 that allows Congress to take over Indian Reservations through Eminent Domain. I thought the constitution said judges can't override a treaty, but in the 1903 Supreme Court decision, they gave Congress that right. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/187/553/case.html

On 11/18/2016, I read this article, stating that the CEO of Energy Transfer Partners, Kelcy Warren, also a Texas billionaire,  said “This is not a peaceful protest” and said pipeline construction will still continue.

The pipeline can be moved, and still increase ETP shareholder's profits. But, despite recent news the Army engineering corp is looking into things, CEO Warren seemed very confident that his pipeline would continue through the Sioux's land. 

Can you recognize the rights of the Native Americans who have been dismissed time and time again, and ask Kelcy Warren to move the pipeline. By speaking up, I feel your words will Unite America, and our forgotten, original Americans, and especially the Sioux. 

Was there a treaty?
There was a treaty in place (Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1851 and 1868), that protected the land, and the constitution protected that Treaty. In the 1868 treaty, signed on April 29, 1868, between the U.S. Government and the Sioux Nation, the United States recognized the Black Hills as part of the Great Sioux Reservation, set aside for exclusive use by the Sioux people. In addition, our constitution supports the treaties and states that no judge -- even a supreme court judge -- can take it away:
 
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states: 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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstandin.

When was the treaty dismissed?
Apparently the supreme court decided in Lone Wolf Vs. Hitchcock in 1903, that Congress DOES NOT have to obey the treaties -- regardless of what the constitution says. Based on Lone Wolf vs. Hitchcock, Eminent Domain take over of protected lands promised by a treaty, and protected by our Constitution, is "legal."

In 1903, I guess due to the zeitgeist of the times, I can understand why they might do that.

What about 2016?
In recent news, I have heard the White House speak up that Trump must uphold treaties, and US obligations (in reference to NATO) ... 

I hope the White House also speaks up about the Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1851 and 1868, and that it does indeed protect the Sioux, and regardless of the supreme court decision in 1903, Congress should not approve for Eminent Domain take over of the Sioux's land---Regardless of the  Army Engineers Corp's technical opinion. It seems unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to dismiss Treaties by allowing Congress to declare Eminent Domain over all Native Americans' reservations within the United States. This benefits special interests, it does not benefit the Sioux.

Please, could you help to get the pipeline moved? It seems like a great opportunity to reunite our divided country by speaking up for the forgotten Americans, and protecting us.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully, 

Jamie Day