Talk:Discovery doctrine

Criticism Section Needs Expansion Suggestion

Has no one challenged this doctrine on the basis of a First Amendment objection to the specification that the monarch be, "Christian"?

Further, how did the Supreme Court reconcile the doctrine with the First Amendment in 1823? I daresay that if the First Amendment wasn't even considered, who ever represented the interests of the indigenous people was either incompetent to do so, or grossly negligent.

What is the progress of the United Nations Economic and Social Council Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues' investigation?

For that matter, what's to protect any nation that has no monarch, considering that most nations no longer have one? According to this doctrine, all the Native Americans need do is select a monarch who is a Christian, and "Discover" all the lands that were taken from them, and suddenly the rest of us will reside here only on their sufferance. (Yes, I know that the Supreme Court held that successors to Christian monarchs are also entitled, but its decisions are hardly binding upon other national governments!)

Yes, the paragraph above is original synthesis. That's why it's here, rather than in the article. Once again, in the process of urging that the Criticism section be expanded, I'm asking whether it's really possible that no one in authority has raised these issues. Downstrike (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Inter caetera

I see no mention here of the Inter caetera, the Papal bull that was used as precedent for US law. Yet the Doctrine of Discovery, the title often given to the entire European religious and legal justification for colonization of the Americas from 1492 to the present redirects here.FriendlyFred (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)