The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
President Trump Repudiates Discovery Doctrine, Favors Acquisition By Conquest
Once again, Trump manages to make obscure law great again.
One of the most remarkable aspects of the Trump presidencies is how he makes so much obscure law return to the fore. It has been well documented how much of the Constitution Trump has implicated. Indeed, one could write an entire book about Trump and the Constitution. (I plan to write a trilogy on the topic.) But Trump also affects other aspects of the law.
The latest instance comes in comments Trump made about Greenland. Trump said:
"The fact that they [Denmark] had a boat land there 500 years ago doesn't mean that they own the land."
Of course, Trump is referring to the doctrine of acquisition by discovery. Chief Justice Marshall discussed this doctrine at length in Johnson v. McIntosh. Most 1Ls read this case in property. In this canonical decision, Marshall explained that European explorers "acquired" land in the Americas pursuant to the discovery doctrine. The discovery doctrine is the root of most property ownership of the United States. For whatever it is worth, the Vatican repudiated the discovery doctrine.
I'll admit I know little about the history of Greenland. I found an article (fittingly) titled "The Rediscovery of Greenland during the Reign of Christian IV." During the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, there were Nordic settlements in Greenland. However, those settlements faded away by the early fifteenth century. Starting in 1605, the Danish king sent expeditions to Greenland. (This is likely the 500-year-old boat that Trump is talking about.) Danish claims to Greenland trace to this re-discovery.
Even as Trump rejects Denmark's claim to the land by virtue of the discovery doctrine, at same he asserted that the United States could acquire Greenland by conquest.
So far, Trump has not had much effect on my Property Law class, but that has now changed.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
DEAR LEADER HAS CHANGED STATE PROPERTY LAW. ALL STUDENTS WILL KNOW HIS AMAZING CONTRIBUTIONS TO ALL AREAS OF LAW.
Pathetic. Kick this guy off of VC. This is embarrassing for the libertarian legal movement and the country’s most prominent legal blog. Trump has not announced this as having anything to do with property law, he’s just rambling about invading an ally and Blackman feels the need to compulsively make it some kind of praise. At least prostitutes get paid for it man.
U mad?
Yes, I think Blackman writes in a way that is unbecoming of an academic blog, provides barely surface level analysis, and contorts himself. I think it's pathetic that other VC contributors have resorted to subtweeting him.
My friend, you have literally tripled your lifetime post count today, over a completely, mundanely average Josh Blackman post. Can't be healthy.
I'd suggest switching to decaf for a while, and making time each day for a nice, long walk in the grass with bare feet. Everything will sort out just fine.
Danes are not in a position to complain to anyone about acquisition by conquest and the reality is that today, they couldn't defend Greenland from an overly aggressive polar bear. In fact they capitulated to the Germans in 6 hours in 1940.
It's all a joke and then people die.
A bad joke. But, yes, that there is the story of life in a nutshell.
Feel the disaffection!
It's so recent!
If you can put lipstick on that pig, have at it. I only have less and less years to live, and without a rich sense of humor, too much still to be wasted.
In case you don't know, I see life as a great gift. "Disaffection" is your word, not mine.
Mr. Blackman, you wrote: "Of course, Trump is referring to the doctrine of acquisition by discovery." I'm pretty sure Trump wasn't referring to any doctrine. I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't know about any doctrines. I seriously doubt that Trump even ever heard of Thurgood Marshall.
He is an example of somebody who's done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice. Wait, that was Frederick Douglas — but, I mean, they all look alike, right?
"but, I mean, they all look alike, right?"
I don't know if it should be a real laughing matter, but Trump does have a history of mixing up black people, as well as people who remotely resemble one of his former wives. There is the time that he made certain assertions about a helicopter ride that he claimed to have taken with Willie Brown on board and it turned out that it was, in fact, another black California politician. Brown denied ever having been on a helicopter with Trump but the other guy, Nate Holden, remembered the ride that Trump described. Holden's observation was, "“Willie is the short Black guy living in San Francisco, “I’m a tall Black guy living in Los Angeles.”
https://apnews.com/article/trump-willie-jerry-brown-helicopter-california-60783296c2baff5df060e50a96f17141
“Of course, Trump is referring to the doctrine of acquisition by discovery.”
One of the funnier things you’ll read today. Josh Blackman, have you no self respect?
When the sane washing attempts still sound crazy, you know it's hopeless.
One does not "acquire" by conquest. Conquest is "adverse possession": conspicuous, hostile, and exclusive.
And, we did not "discover" America, we adversely possessed it...running out the native Americans.
From my web site (and originally posted here):
Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (decided February 28, 1823): Why do law professors like to play with the heads of 1L’s? In Property Law, instead of starting the course with some simple cases illustrating basic principles, they confuse new law students with this mishmash involving purchase of land from an Indian tribe, the granting of a federal land patent to someone else, the “doctrine of discovery”, “aboriginal title” . . . and almost all the opinion is dicta where they’re forced to listen to Marshall expound on the Rights of Whites by Conquest. There is no possible way this case helps them understand real life property law. (Another torturer of students in their first week of law school was Farnsworth, who decided to start his Contracts casebook with Laredo Hides v. H & H Meat Products, where the student is forced to learn a complicated formula for damages -- this is, mind you, after a contract is formed, after it’s broken, and after it’s litigated on liability. “In medias res” might be a good trick to use in fiction, but in teaching a course it’s poor, poor, poor.) As for the holding, it’s not worth mentioning because it didn’t pertain to the actual facts. Law students would be better off if they could flush all memory of this case from their brains
Make Imperialism Great Again!
Slightly less insane than this, yet still utterly Trumpish, would be his wish to oversee the US' largest fell-swoop territorial increase ever. Thomas Jefferson negotiated the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon, who needed the money to fund his wars; the LP consisted of about 828,000 sq mi west of the Mississippi. Should Trump succeed in grabbing Greenland (by hook or by crook), he will have added approx. 836,330 sq mi to US land ownership. BIGGEST EVER! GREATEST EVER! AND ONLY I COULD DO IT!
But he might prefer to negotiate (BEST DEAL IN HUMAN HISTORY!) an actual purchase from Denmark and Greenland to a military takeover. That's because unprovoked aggression is in fact a war crime. The military would be duty- and honor-bound to disobey him were he to order it. He was warned about that last fall.
It's obvious he wants what Putin has: Wealth; Fear; Landmass; The ability to invade countries at will; Killing opponents.
And their nice red uniforms.
In fact,
France's title to the territory was questioned,
Spain was proposed to be the true owner,
Jefferson argued that national security gave the US the right to the territory,
while admitting his argument was not constitutional,
but subject to a "higher authority,"
Napoleon's authority to sell was challenged by his brothers,
Jefferson's purchase was challenged by his opponents.
The US Supreme Court later ruled the acquisition legal under "inherent authority" referring to the power to make treaties.
Some proponents raised a militia prior to Jefferson making an offer,
Jefferson considered military options.
Unprovoked aggression is not a war crime. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its a war crime.
Was Obama's attack on Libya a war crime?
Was Bush's invasion of Kuwait a war crime - remember that Iraq didn't attack the US.
Speaking of Greenland history, some fun facts about Denmark and its loving colonial stewardship. (I guess colonizers are good now?) The CCP must be envious:
Greenland has not been a very good guardian of the natives, who call themselves the Kalaallit. They are 85% of the population.
On September 25, the New York Times reported, “Denmark Forced Contraception on Greenlandic Girls, a Scathing Report Confirms.”
The story said, “In the 1960s and 1970s, and to a lesser degree in the decades that followed, Danish doctors implanted IUDs in thousands of Greenlandic women and girls, in many cases without their permission.
“It was part of an official government campaign, carried out by Denmark for decades, that was intended to control the growth of Greenland’s population.
“The scandal stands as a painful symbol of what Greenlanders consider generations of mistreatment by the Danes, and the report’s findings come at a delicate time.”
https://donsurber.substack.com/p/what-trump-wants-from-greenland
In the 1960s and 1970s, the Indian Health Service (IHS) and collaborating physicians sustained a practice of performing sterilizations on Native American women, in many cases without the free and informed consent of their patients. Tactics for sterilization included healthcare providers neglecting to tell women they were going to be sterilized and forms of coercion such as threatening to take away welfare or healthcare.[1] In some cases, women were misled into believing that the sterilization procedure was reversible. In yet other cases, sterilization was performed without the adequate understanding and consent of the patient, including cases in which the procedure was performed on minors as young as 11 years old
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_American_women
I suppose I could note that any medical abuses by the IHS were not conducted pursuant to any official federal policy or directive, quite unlike the Danish policy; and point out that if our positions were reversed, and I had posted your comment, I would be met with deafening whines of "whataboutism"
But since I'm not a third-string asshole parrot rent-a-troll, I will ask, do you condone or support the official efforts of the colonial Danes to forcefully implant IUDs in thousands of Greenlandic women and girls? Are they good colonizers entitled to maintain their stewardship?
Preceding the Population Research Act of 1970, overpopulation was a matter of national public concern. In a 1969 message to Congress, President Nixon claimed that overpopulation would be "one of the most serious challenges to human destiny in the last third of this century." In response to these concerns, Congress passed this act designed to address two goals: establishing a federal Office of Population Affairs and making voluntary family planning services available to the people.[21] Six years after its passing, it is estimated that physicians sterilized perhaps 25% of Native American women of childbearing age. Evidence suggests that the numbers were higher. These high numbers could be linked to the law subsidizing sterilizations for patients who utilized Indian Health Service and Medicaid patients.[22]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterilization_of_Native_American_women
For the record, IUDs and sterilization are different things; the former are reversible.
For the record, then crazy, the forced implantations of IUDs in thousands of Greenlandic women and girls was ok?
As an aside, since you seem to be having some difficulty understanding, there was no policy of forced sterilizations. And since the relevance of such a subject is understandable only by rent-a-trolls, I'll leave you to play. And if you're just an alias of the other troll, I guess you'll be playing with yourself.
I suppose I could reiterate that any medical abuses by the IHS were not conducted pursuant to any official federal policy or directive, and that nothing in this string of Wikipedia vomit says otherwise. And I could also note that this has nothing to do with the quite clearly intentional Danish policy of forced implantations. But to expect a reasonable response from a third string asshole parrot troll would be absurd, so consider this exchange concluded.
Lisa Mulkulski screeched that countries can't own other countries. She was in Denmark! Denmark owns Greenland! What an idiot!
Speaking of idiots, did you mean Lisa Murkowski?
Native Americans were the first to settle Greenland. They were there when the Vikings arrived, when the Vikings abandoned Greenland, and when Denmark sent investigators to determine whether any Vikings remained, and, if so, to convert them to Protestants. They are still there today.
Finding no Vikings, they tried to convert the Native Americans, with little success.
They wouldn’t have been Native *Americans.”
Well, I guess you could call them that because they’re on the North American tectonic plate, but it seems weird.
First one to conquer Josh gets his house.
Josh has a whole bunch of men with guns to defend his house.
Property law? What property law?
The law Trump is propounding is a much simpler one than that.
“Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.”
Whether we like it or not, acknowledging that 'the man with the Maxim makes the law' is the first step in doing something about it.
"Discovery rule."
The natives might have something to say about that.
Reality is, it was conquest.
Josh, to himself: "I must try harder to look ridiculous in my supporting of Trump. Ah, here we go."
Unless there was actually nobody there when you first showed up then . . . really all land claims are rooted in conquest.
And even if you showed up first - unless you could defend it against conquest you lost it.