Does it violate the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution to subject Indians to stand federal trial for alleged crimes in Indian country?

QUESTION PRESENTED Does it violate the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution to subject Indians to stand federal trial for alleged crimes in Indian country? The General Crimes Act, the Major Crimes Act and many other federal statutes encroaching upon Indian rights in Indian country directly conflict with the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868), 15 Stat. 635, in Art. II of which the United States pledged that the Great Sioux Reservation would be "set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the Indians herein named." The Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) is “the Supreme law of the Land” by virtue of the Supremacy Clause,. Art. I, §8; Art. VI, cl. 2. John Jay, founder and the First United States Supreme Court Justice, made clear in Federalist No. 64 that the consent of both parties to a treaty is required “ever afterwards [be] to alter or cancel them,” John Jay, Federalist No. 64, The Powers of the Senate, The Independent Journal (Mar. 5, 1788). When faced with demonstrably . erroneous precedent that defies John Jay’s stricture in Federalist No. 64 that Treaty obligations are “just as far beyond the lawful reach of legislative acts now as they will be at any future period, or under any form of government,” should this Court hold such legislative acts to be unconstitutional in violation of the Supremacy Clause, or should this Court continue to follow “demonstrably erroneous precedent,” quoting Justice Thomas’ eloquent concurrence discussing stare decisis in Gamble v. United u @ ‘ States, 1389 S. Ct. 1960 (2019), at 1984, or should the Court simply “not follow it,” as Justice Thomas suggests? iii @ e