( 8 Wheat .) 543 . Writing for a unanimous court , Chief Justice John Marshall observed that Christian European nations had assumed “ ultimate dominion ” over the lands of America during the Age of Discovery , and that – upon ‘ discovery ’ – the Indians had lost ‘ their rights to complete sovereignty , as independent nations ,’ and only retained a right of ‘ occupancy ’ in their lands . In essence , that means a European power has gained radical title ( sovereignty ) to any land it “ discovers .”
This highly influential case became the standard for first-year students ’ curriculum in most U . S . law schools , solidifying the discovery doctrine ’ s place in clarifying contemporary property law . It was an articulation that redacted and consolidated imperial protocol into colonial discovery . So , Marshall ’ s decision was a final codification of the Christian Doctrine of Discovery . Subsequently for almost two centuries , citation to this case ’ s prominent outcome has been primary for federal and state cases associated with Native American land-title disputes .
In other words , per United States property law in use today , Native American nations are still subject to this ultimate authority of the “ first nation of Christendom ” ( based on the issuance of old Papal Bulls ) to claim possession of a given expanse of “ discovered ” American lands . This means that they don ’ t hold title to their own “ discovered ” territory . Therefore , indigenous people are still declared as only tenants “ occupying ” their beloved ancestral homeland — bull ! The widespread use of the antiquated , false Doctrine of Discovery in American law means that the U . S . is a vassal of the Vatican . Therefore , the Vatican actually controls corporate entities such as the United States , via Roman Curia law ( the administrative apparatus of the Holy See ). This is an outdated religious-cultural judiciary logic that has provided a framework for influencing contemporary legal , social , intellectual , and major policy decisions . Think about it realistically
— cases are still being decided based on the norms codified in early nineteenth century considerations of doctrinal discovery .
This is evident as recently as in 2005 , during a U . S . case , City of Sherill v Oneida Indian Nation of New York . The court ruled that “ under the ‘ doctrine of discovery ,’ fee title to the lands occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign – first the discovering European nation ... and later the original States and the United States .” 5
For the last ten years indigenous organizations and natural law advocates have been working diligently and passionately , requesting the Pope revoke the Papal Bull-based Doctrine of crime against humanity . According to the Romero Institute , some religions have even joined in this campaign of repudiation against the Doctrine of Discovery : The Episcopal Church , Unitarian Universalist Association , Christian Church , World Council of Churches , New York Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends , and the United Methodist Church . Several associations have called for reversal , including thirteen Catholic groups started by the Loretto Community . 6
Continuing from Ms . Jacques ’ article in The Sovereign Voice , Issue 3 , an esteemed group of worldwide elders has been seeking an audience with Pope Francis to deliver a major missive that the Papal Bulls behind the Roman Catholic Church ’ s Doctrine of Discovery must be officially rescinded . The Long March to Rome gathering took place from 30 April to 4 May , 2016 in Florence , Italy , and culminated in a delegation of eleven indigenous elders meeting with Pope Francis to request that these three Papal Bulls be revoked , and issuing a joint statement to Pope Francis and the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace . Steven Newcomb , a member of the delegation , shared more of the journey leading up to this historic request .
5City of Sherrill v . Oneida Indian Nation , 544 U . S . 197 ( 2005 ) 6The Romero Institute
TheSovereignVoice . Org