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 to 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?
It's all a joke and then people die.
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.
“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.
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