0
Did the US Supreme Court case Worcester v. Georgia legally open Cherokee lands to mining?
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
No. The case had nothing to do with mining.
Worcester v. Georgia (1832) addressed a Georgia law requiring whites living in Cherokee territory to obtain a permit from the state. When seven missionaries refused to follow the law, they were convicted and sentenced to four years hard labor.
When the appeal reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marshall stated the United States relationship to the Cherokee was that of two separate nations, giving the federal government the sole right of negotiation with the Native American nations, and barring Georgia from taking action against them. Marshall further opined that the government did not have the right of possession of Native American land, nor dominion over their laws, short of military conquest or legal purchase.
According to Marshall, the Cherokee weren't bound by Georgia state law while in their own territory, and Georgia couldn't make laws regarding use of their territory.
He also ordered Georgia to release the missionaries, which it did.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What did the Supreme Court rule about executive agreements in 1937?
They are legally binding in the same way that treaties are.
Segregation of which of the following was legally challenged in a Supreme Court case now known simply as Brown?
public education
What happens when the US Supreme Court agrees with the lower court ruling?
If the US Supreme Court agrees with the lower court ruling, the decision is "affirmed," and becomes legally final (res judicata).
What supreme court case ruled that the government could not legally ban student run religious publications?
Rosenberger v. University of Virginia
Which statement most accurately describes the roles of Congress and the Supreme Court in shaping federal laws?
The president sets a policy for enforcing the law, but the Supreme Court can void the policy if it violates the Constitution. -Apex
What president forced the removal of the Cherokee?
Technically, none, although the test answer is Andrew Jackson, who pushed Congress to pass the Indian Removal Act of 1830.President Jackson is frequently accused of defying Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in Worcester v. Georgia, (1832) that the US government had a duty to protect the Cherokee as a dependent sovereign nation; however, Marshall's words on the subject were not part of the legal decision, but dicta (obiter dictum, Latin: an aside or comment related to the case but not legally binding; a personal opinion).The legal decision simply held that the State of Georgia had no right to pass laws regulating the Cherokee's use of their own land, and ordered Georgia to release jailed missionaries who had been living on Cherokee land in defiance of state laws.The United States wasn't party to the Worcester v. Georgia suit, so the Supreme Court didn't have authority to order them to do anything. Chief Justice Marshall made a concerted effort to persuade Jackson and the federal government to protect the Cherokee, but the President, Congress and the southern states all wanted the Native American land for their own purposes and had no intention of cooperating.Case Citation:Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832)
What were the circumstances of Cherokee Nation v Georgia?
No one won the case Cherokee Nation v Georgia, (1831). The US Supreme Court determined it didn't have authority to hear the case under original (trial) jurisdiction because the Cherokee Nation didn't qualify as a State. Chief Justice Marshall indicated the Court would hear the case on appeal. Unfortunately, the Cherokee didn't refile in the lower courts, so their case was never officially heard.For practical purposes, the Cherokee lost because they were unable to negotiate the federal judicial system to get a favorable ruling before the US government removed them from their ancestral land in the tragedy that became known as The Trail of Tears.Case Citation:Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831)
How was President Jackson able to overrule the Supreme Court and force the Cherokee to move?
He didn't. Chief Justice John Marshall's written opinion(s) in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia, (1832), the two Supreme Court decisions people mistakenly believe President Jackson overruled, applied only to the State of Georgia. Chief Justice John Marshall expressed his personal opinion about the United States' legal and ethical duty to the Native Americans within the body of the legal opinion, but his comments (called obiter dictum or dicta) weren't part of the Court's official decisions and weren't legally binding on the United States.ExplanationIn both Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia, (1832), the Court declared the United States relationship to the Cherokee was that of two separate nations, with the Cherokee's status a "denominated domestic dependent nation," giving the federal government the sole right of negotiation with them and creating a duty to protect the Cherokee from Georgia's hostile actions. The decision in Worcesterbarred Georgia from annexing the land, and ruled the state did not have the right of possession, nor dominion over Cherokee laws or territory, short of military conquest or legal purchase. The Supreme Court's opinion applied specifically to Georgia, not to the federal government.Jackson ignored Marshall's assertion that the federal government was obligated to protect the Native Americans; but there way no legal requirement for the federal government to follow Marshall's instructions because 1) the statement wasn't part of the official ruling (Worcester v. Georgia, (1832)); 2) the removal issue wasn't a question before the Court; 3) the United States wasn't party to the case; and 4) the Court has no power to enforce its rulings, anyway. The Constitution assigns authority over law enforcement to the Executive branch of government, over which the President presided. Because Jackson, then Van Buren, and Congress were in agreement about (mis)appropriating Cherokee land and moving them to less hospitable territory west of the Mississippi River, the Supreme Court had no way of preventing their action.Jackson pressured the Governor of Georgia to pardon and release from jail the missionaries who had lived on Native American land without buying a required state license. Georgia continued to enforce its unconstitutional laws, but did not claim the disputed territory.Jackson's presidential successor, Martin Van Buren, and Congress circumvented the Supreme Court by ratifying the Treaty of New Echota in 1836, an instrument signed by the Ridge Party, an unauthorized faction within the Cherokee Nation. The Treaty offered the Nation five million dollars and land in Indian Territory (modern-day Oklahoma) in exchange for the more desirable Southern ancestral land. Although John Ross, elected leader of the Cherokee Nation, protested to Congress, his pleas were ignored.The Supreme Court never had an opportunity to rule on the validity of the Treaty because no case was presented for consideration.For more information about Worcester v. Georgia, see Related Questions, below.
Were Cherokee Indians bad?
Cherokee of North Georgia were farmers and wore the clothes of many Europeon immigrants. When they were going to be moved by the Indian removal at they organized as a nation and then were removed by treaty to Oklahoma. Other than reacting to property being taken under false pretensions and fighting legally, including law suits going all the way to the supreme court, the Cherokee were willing to assimilate the European culture.
Did Andrew Jackson obey the supreme court or go against them?
No, this is a common misconception due to the way Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion of the Court for Worcester v. Georgia, (1832), mixing the legal decision with his personal beliefs.President Jackson ignored John Marshall's personal opinion about the federal government owing protection to the Cherokee, but that wasn't part of the official ruling in Worcester because the United States was not a party to the case. Courts only have authority to issue legally binding decisions against people or entities named as a party to the suit being tried. Jackson may have had a moral and ethical obligation to defend the Cherokee Nation against Georgia's aggression, but no legal duty had been established.The only legal ruling in the case was against the state of Georgia, which released the missionaries held in prison for living on Cherokee land without holding a state license, but ignored the part of the decision that stated Georgia had no right to regulate the Cherokee or their land. President Jackson declined to intervene, but was not legally required to do so, anyway.Jackson continued to support Georgia in its mission to drive the Native Americans from their land, and successfully hobbled Marshall by nominating like-minded Associate Justices to vacancies on the then seven-member court. By politicizing the Court, Jackson subverted its power as one of the checks and balances on the Executive and Legislative branches.The sad conclusion to this story was the 1836 ratification of a removal treaty between the United States government and the Cherokee Nation, the Treaty of New Echota. This resulted in the US Army forcibly relocating the Native Americans from their ancestral land under the Van Buren administration in 1838, a travesty later known as The Trail of Tears.Case Citation:Worcester v. Georgia, 31 US 515 (1832)
How did President Andrew Jackson respond to the Supreme Court ruling allowing the Cherokee to stay on their land?
The Supreme Court never ruled on the subject of the Cherokee's removal because the Court held it lacked original (trial) jurisdiction over the case. John Ross would have had to refile his case in a District Court, then petition the Supreme Court to hear it on appeal. This never happened. Everything Chief Justice John Marshall wrote about the federal government's obligation to the Cherokee was personal opinion, not part of a legally binding decision._______________________________________________________________What I'm about to say might help. In the court case, Worcester v. Georgia, the court said that the Cherokee's couldn't be affected by Georgia's state laws that would try to break the terms on which they self govern themselves. The court might have said this but both Georgia and President Andrew Jackson ignored the court's ruling._______________________________________________________________More InformationAccording to popular myth, Jackson was supposed to have said, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" In Paul Boller's book, They Never Said It: A Book of False Quotes, Misquotes, & False Attributions, historian Robert V. Remini claims Jackson never made such a statement. The tale is based on something Jackson wrote in a letter to John Coffee, "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate,"meaning the Court's opinion was moot because it had no power to enforce its edict (not being a legislative body).The State of Georgia wanted to evict the Cherokee tribes from treaty land because gold had been discovered on it. The Cherokee tribe took the matter to the Supreme Court, where then Chief Justice John Marshall presided.The case, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 US 1 (1831), was dismissed for lack of original jurisdiction because the Supreme Court determined the Cherokee Nation and United States were like two separate nations, with the Cherokee's status that of a "denominated domestic dependent nation," which the federal government was obligated to protect.In Worcester v. Georgia, (1832), Chief Justice John Marshall stated that Georgia had no legal right to interfere with the Cherokee and held that the Native Americans were not bound by Georgia law while on their own land. In the Court's opinion the territory under Cherokee occupation would have passed to the United States government following the British defeat in the Revolutionary War, and that the Cherokee Nation was not a state but a "denominated domestic dependent nation." This created an implied obligation for the federal government to defend the Native Americans against Georgia, but Jackson ignored Marshall's suggestion because Marshall's comments about the United States' obligations were personal opinion, not part of the legal decision.While this may appear to grant the Cherokee a right to remain on tribal land, the ruling only applied to the state of Georgia. The Court lacked jurisdiction over the United States government because the United States was not party to the case, and the question before the Court related to the fate of imprisoned missionaries (Worcester, et al.), and whether the State of Georgia had a right to make laws regulating the use of Cherokee land, not removal.Unfortunately, the decision couldn't reach the broader issue regarding Georgia's and Congress' determination to evict the Cherokee, so any allegations that the Supreme Court determined the Cherokee could remain on their land is a misinterpretation of the case.Jackson was a staunch proponent of Indian removal because, in his view, the Indian land was a valuable commodity, and their occupation stood in the way of progress. The United States had already appropriated more than 22 million acres of land from the Creek (1814) and Seminole (1818) nations by use of military force. An earlier Supreme Court ruling, Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823), validated this practice, while the Worcester ruling seemed to condemn it, supporting, instead, Native American rights.Both Jackson and the state of Georgia ignored the Court's ruling about Georgia law being inapplicable in Native American territory.The US government was ultimately responsible for the Cherokee being removed from Georgia as a result of the Treaty of New Echota, ratified in 1836. Congress offered the Native Americans $5 million and land 1,000 miles away in Indian Territory (present day Oklahoma) in exchange for their Southern land. An unauthorized faction within the Cherokee Nation agreed to the Treaty, but the elected Cherokee officials protested to Congress. Congress ignored them.President Van Buren, Jackson's cohort and successor, ordered federal troops to force some 15,000 Cherokees to leave Georgia in winter, leading to what became known as the Trail of Tears for the many who died en route.
Was Andrew Jackson's refusal to uphold the Supreme Court's decision relative to the Cherokee a legitimate use of checks and balances?
Andrew Jackson didn't refuse to uphold the US Supreme Court's decision. This is a common misunderstanding of Chief Justice John Marshall's written opinions in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia, (1832).Hypothetically, if the Supreme Court had proper jurisdiction to order the federal government to protect the Cherokee and Jackson refused, his inaction would not be a "legitimate use of checks and balances." The Constitution doesn't authorize the President to ignore the Supreme Court's decisions; the Executive Branch (President) is charged with the responsibility of enforcing them. Jackson would have been guilty of circumventing the system of checks and balances.ExplanationIn both Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia, (1832), the Court declared the United States relationship to the Cherokee was that of two separate nations, with the Cherokee's status a "denominated domestic dependent nation," giving the federal government the sole right of negotiation with them and creating a duty to protect the Cherokee from Georgia's hostile actions. The decision in Worcesterbarred Georgia from annexing the land, and ruled the state did not have the right of possession, nor dominion over Cherokee laws or territory, short of military conquest or legal purchase. The Supreme Court's opinion applied specifically to Georgia, not to the federal government.Jackson ignored Marshall's assertion that the federal government was obligated to protect the Native Americans; there way no legal requirement for the federal government to adhere to Marshall's decision because 1) the statement wasn't part of the official ruling (Worcester v. Georgia, (1832)); 2) the removal issue wasn't a question before the Court; 3) the United States wasn't party to the case; and 4) the Court has no power to enforce its rulings, anyway. The Constitution assigns authority over law enforcement to the Executive branch of government, over which the President presided. Because Jackson, then Van Buren, and Congress were in agreement about (mis)appropriating Cherokee land and moving them to less hospitable territory west of the Mississippi River, the Supreme Court had no way of preventing their action.Jackson pressured the Governor of Georgia to pardon and release from jail the missionaries who had lived on Native American land without buying a required state license. Georgia continued to enforce its unconstitutional laws, but did not claim the disputed territory.Treaty of New EchotoaPresident Jackson wasn't in office when the Cherokee were forced from their land following the 1836 Treaty of New Echotoa. President Jackson opposed the Court's developing support of Native American rights, but was never legally required to uphold the Court's decisions in the relevant cases.Jackson's presidential successor, Martin Van Buren, and Congress circumvented the Supreme Court by ratifying the Treaty of New Echota in 1836, an instrument signed by the Ridge Party, an unauthorized faction within the Cherokee Nation. The Treaty offered the Nation 5 million dollars and land in Indian Territory (modern Oklahoma) in exchange for the more desirable Southern ancestral land. Although John Ross, elected leader of the Cherokee Nation, protested to Congress, his pleas were ignored. The illegal treaty lead directly to the tragic "Trail of Tears."The Supreme Court never had an opportunity to rule on the validity of the Treaty because no case was presented for consideration.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Which Supreme Court decision denied the right of states to take tribal lands but was ignored by President Andrew Jackson?
None. The Supreme Court never ruled on the subject of the Cherokee's removal because the Court held it lacked original (trial) jurisdiction over the case. John Ross would have had to refile his case (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, (1831)) in a District Court, then petition the Supreme Court to hear it on appeal. This never happened. Everything Chief Justice John Marshall wrote about the federal government's obligation to the Cherokee was personal opinion, not part of a legally binding decision.In Worcester v. Georgia, (1832), the US Supreme Court ruled Georgia laws (and by extension similar laws in others states) regulating the Cherokee and use of their territory was inapplicable because the Cherokee Nation was not a state but a "denominated domestic dependent nation." As such, only the Federal government had the right to negotiate with the Native Americans; Georgia could not force them off their land. The Marshall Court also expressed the opinion that the federal government owed a duty of protection to the Native Americans from Georgia's aggression. Unfortunately, the United States was not party to the suit. Although Marshall charged Jackson with a moral obligation, his literal opinion with regard to the United States' obligations toward a domestic dependent did not carry the weight of law.This case is often confused with the earlier Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, (1831), in which the Cherokee fought to retain their land rights after Georgia enacted a series of laws that stripped Native Americans of their rights, in order to annex their land and force the Cherokee to leave the state (1828).Fearing Georgia had the support of President Jackson, John Ross, Chief of the Cherokee Nation, led a delegation to Washington to plead for relief directly from Congress, bypassing the usual process of negotiating directly with the President. Although Ross found support in Congress, it was insufficient to overturn Georgia law.Ross then appealed directly to the US Supreme Court for an injunction against Georgia's laws. The Court determined it didn't have original jurisdiction over the matter because of the Cherokee Nation's status not being that of another state. The injunction was denied, but the Court indicated it would be willing to review the matter on appeal from the lower courts.While President Jackson supported the move, and thwarted the Court by appointing like-minded justices to dilute Marshall's influence, the sad conclusion to this story occurred after Jackson left office. In 1836, Congress negotiated a removal treaty with the Cherokee Nation, the Treaty of New Echota. This resulted in the forcible removal of the Native Americans from their land by the U.S. Army under the Van Buren administration in 1838, a travesty later known as The Trail of Tears.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
How many children can you legally keep in your home daycare unlicensed in Georgia?
As of 2011, you may legally care for 2 children in the state of Georgia without a license.
Why did the Cherokee give up their land?
Congress passed the Indian Removal Act in 1830 and then president Andrew Jackson signed it very soon after it passed. Two years before, rumors had begun to circulate regarding gold found in the mountains of Cherokee land. It is perhaps this that helped to push through the IRA, and perhaps what prompted Jackson to sign it into law. The Cherokee Nation attempted to fight the IRA legally, and filed suit against the state of Georgia in their attempt to move Native American people. the Supreme court of Georgia refused to hear the case as did the Court of Appeals, but the US Supreme Court did hear the case, and found in favor of the Cherokee Nation in 1832, and Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Cherokee represented a sovereign nation. In 1835 the Cherokee Nation was divided between two principle leaders, Chief John Ross, and Major Ridge (along with his son John and Elias Boudinot. Ross advocated remaining on the homelands in North Carolina and Georgia. Ridge and his followers moved for removal to the Oklahoma Territory. on 29 December 1835, the minority group lead by Ridge signed the Treaty of New Echota. The US Senate ratified the treaty in 1836, and this was used to forcibly remove the Cherokee along with people from the other Five Nations (comprised of Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muscogee, and Seminole tribes). Infamously, when presented with the decision issued by the US Supreme Court, Jackson stated to the effect, "Let them enforce it," signifying one of the weak links in US political structure.
If you get married in South Carolina but you live in Georgia are you legally married?
Yes. If you were married legally in SC then anywhere you go you are married legally.
Why didn't the US Supreme Court enforce its ruling in Worcester v. Georgia?
There was no need to enforce the ruling, because Georgia capitulated to pressure from President Jackson and complied with the Court's order to release the missionaries. Georgia ignored the Marshall's opinion about the state's lack of rights with regard to both the Cherokee and their territory, enabled by a lack of intervention from Congress and the President.ExplanationThe Supreme Court doesn't have authority to enforce its rulings under the Constitution. Any enforcement is the responsibility of the Executive branch, and depends upon supporting federal law from the Legislative branch.Worcester v. Georgia, (1832), addressed a Georgia law requiring whites living in Cherokee territory to obtain a permit from the state. When seven missionaries refused to follow the law, they were convicted and sentenced to four years hard labor.When the appeal reached the Supreme Court, the Court declared the United States relationship to the Cherokee that of two separate nations, with the Cherokee considered a "denominated domestic dependent nation." This gave the federal government the sole right of negotiation with the Native American nations, barring Georgia from taking action against them. Chief Justice John Marshall further opined that the government did not have the right of possession of Native American land, nor dominion over their laws, short of military conquest or legal purchase. He also stated the United States had a duty to protect the Cherokee Nation from Georgia, which the federal government chose to ignore.Popular folklore alleges President Jackson's response to the decision was, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" According to Paul Boller's book, They Never Said It: A Book of False Quotes, Misquotes, & False Attributions, however, what Jackson actually said was, "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate," meaning the Court had no power to enforce its edict. The federal government declined to intervene, as Marshall suggested.Despite the Court's expressed opinion, the only legal ruling in the case was one that overturned Georgia's conviction of the missionaries and nullified the related state laws. Under pressure from President Jackson, Georgia complied with the Court's order and released the plaintiffs, while ignoring the opinion about the state's lack of rights with regard to both the Cherokee and their territory.Marshall's comments about the federal government owing the Cherokee protection were not part of the official ruling because the United States government was not party to the case and not obligated to accommodate the Chief Justice's personal beliefs.Jackson continued to support Georgia in its mission to drive the Native Americans from their land, and successfully hobbled Marshall by nominating like-minded Associate Justices to vacancies on the then seven-member court.The sad conclusion to this story was the 1836 ratification of a legally questionable removal treaty with the Cherokee Nation, the Treaty of New Echota. This resulted in the US Army forceably removing the Native Americans from their land under the Van Buren administration in 1838, a travesty later known as The Trail of Tears.Case Citation:Worcester v. Georgia, 31 US 515 (1832)For more information, see Related Links and Related Questions, below.
