legal analysis of the 1866 Cherokee Treaty and 1867 Agreement. The agency concluded the agreement evidenced the Delawares’ election of the treaty’s “preservation option” because it required two payments (whereas the incorporation option only required one) and Delawares made two payments ($157,600 and $121,824) to the Cherokee Nation. The DOI therefore maintains the Delawares preserved their tribal identity when they moved to the Cherokee Nation in the 1860s. We do not begin with a clean slate. In fact, every court to consider the actual terms of the 1866 Cherokee Treaty and 1867 Agreement has explicitly or implicitly rejected the DOFs reading of the agreement. See Jou0rneycake v. Cherokee Nation, 28 Ct.Cl. 281, 311 (1893) affd as modified 155 U.S. 196, 15 S.Ct. 55, 39 L.Ed. 120 (1894) (<HOLDING>); Cherokee Nation v. Journeycake, 155 U.S. 196,
holding that under the 1867 agreement two independent bodies politic united and became one the lesser according to its terms being merged into the greater holding public bodies may not be bound by contracts without evidence of the contract terms in the minutes recognizing court must enforce unambiguous contract according to its terms holding that if the statutory terms are unambiguous a courts review ends and the statute is construed according to the plain meaning of its words holding that when the language of a statute is clear courts should not substitute their judgment for that of congress and should enforce the statute according to its terms