1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Sophie [7]
3 years ago
8

What was the result of the Supreme Court ruling that Native American groups were not independent nations?

History
2 answers:
lapo4ka [179]3 years ago
5 0
It prevented the federal government's choice to stop making treaties and allowed it to continue passing the laws to carry out its Native American policies
denis23 [38]3 years ago
5 0
In the cases Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the U.S. Supreme Court considered its powers to enforce the rights of Native American "nations" against the states. In Cherokee Nation, the Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction<span> (the power to hear a case) to review claims of an Indian nation within the United States. In Worcester, the Court ruled that only the United States, and not the individual states, had power to regulate or deal with the Indian nations. </span>

<span>In 1828, the state of Georgia passed a series of laws stripping local Cherokee Indians of their rights. The laws also authorized Cherokee removal from lands sought after by the state. In defense, the Cherokee cited treaties that they had negotiated, as an independent "nation," with the United States, guaranteeing the Cherokee nation both the land and independence. After failed negotiations with President Andrew Jackson and Congress, the Cherokee, under the leadership of John Ross, sought an </span>injunction<span> ("order to stop") at the Supreme Court against Georgia to prevent its carrying out these laws. </span>

<span>The Court, in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and could not resolve it. The Court began by sympathizing with the Cherokees' plight, acknowledging that they had been persecuted and marginalized by America's European settlers, then asserted that Indian nations were both "foreign nations" and people within U.S. boundaries. In other words, the Cherokee, though sometimes viewed as an independent nation, were also dependent people on the nation that envelopes them. Thus, the Court asserted that "foreign nations," as used in the Constitution, could not include "Indian nations." Because the Constitution only authorizes the Supreme Court to hear cases brought by "foreign nations," not "Indian nations," the Court was not authorized to entertain this case and dismissed it. Meanwhile, in 1830, Georgia passed another law requiring its citizens to obtain a state license before dwelling inside the Cherokee Nation. A group of missionaries residing there, including Samuel Austin Worcester, refused to obtain such a license. The missionaries were known supporters of Cherokee resistance to Georgia's removal efforts. Worcester and a fellow missionary were indicted by a Georgia court, brought to trial, and convicted. Worcester appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that the Georgia court lacked authority to convict them. </span>

<span>On review of the case, the Supreme Court in Worcester v. Georgia ruled that because the Cherokee Nation was a separate political entity that could not be regulated by the state, Georgia's license law was unconstitutional and Worcester's conviction should be overturned. The Court first pointed to evidence proving that the Native American communities were conceived of as "separate nations" dating back to the time of early colonial America. The Court then argued that today's "treaties and laws of the United States [also] contemplate the Indian territory as completely separated from that of the states; and provide that all intercourse with them shall be carried on exclusively by the government of the union." Therefore, only the United States can negotiate the terms of Indian lands and the use thereof. States lack constitutional power to deal with such "nations" at all. Thus, Georgia could not pass the license law and convict Worcester for violation of that law. </span>

<span>The Supreme Court's ruling, however, was neither followed by Georgia nor enforced by the U.S. government. President Andrew Jackson, sensitive to Georgia's claims of independence at a time when the states wielded considerable power, had no interest in enforcing the Court's decree. The missionaries remained imprisoned until 1833, when a new Georgia governor negotiated for their release. The Georgia Cherokees themselves were forcibly relocated in 1838, pursuant to a U.S. treaty, to present-day Oklahoma ("the Trail of Tears"). Today, the substantive ruling in Worcester is no longer binding: the Supreme Court holds that, to a certain extent, a state may regulate the Indian territories within its boundaries.</span>
You might be interested in
Do you think ostracism was a good idea?
Vadim26 [7]

Answer:

nope

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How did Islam spread to The Maldives
dolphi86 [110]
Omg omg omg omg im from Maldives. Well i forgot excaclty how but this dude came and he told the sultan of Male' i think about believing in islam and the king said theres a seamonster also known as 'fureytha' in dhivehi the language used by madlivians.SO the king asked the dude who came to give knowledge about islam that if he cud get rid of the fureytha that the people of Maldives had to give a women as a sacrifice to then only wud the country believe in Islam.The dude pretended to be a woman and waited at the sacrifice spot at night waiting for the fureytha while reciting the holy quran and the seamonster fureytha dude never came .From then maldives became an Islamic country
6 0
3 years ago
Comentează textul in minimum 50 de cuvinte , evidențiind relația dintre ideea poetica și mijloacele artistice ( Șt. O. Iosif , i
Flauer [41]
Sorry don’t understand!
3 0
3 years ago
What type of person might hold power in a hunter-gatherer society? In a settled agricultural society. Support your opinions on t
mezya [45]

Answer:

(Men mostly) hunt and women mostly gather. When anthropologist Carol Ember surveyed 179 societies, she found only 13 in which women participated in hunting.

Until about 12,000 to 11,000 years ago, when agriculture and animal domestication emerged in southwest Asia and in Mesoamerica, all peoples were hunter-gatherers.

5 0
2 years ago
hich statement best completes the diagram?A.Wealthy people should be leaders in society.B.Rituals should always be performed alo
lukranit [14]

Answer:

the answer is c

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What were early mesoamericans known for
    7·2 answers
  • What did the Federalist<br> believe was needed<br> during the ratification<br> process?
    6·1 answer
  • Choose the statements that CORRECTLY describe the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta. The 1996 Summer Olympic Games were the 1
    11·2 answers
  • During the Age of Discovery, the purpose of most European explorations was to search for resources and trade routes and to where
    12·1 answer
  • Question 12 need help!!
    12·1 answer
  • 2.. What was each group's goal, and what did they accomplish? Fill in the chart.
    5·1 answer
  • Which bill of rights protection has not been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment so that it applies to the estate?
    8·2 answers
  • What are three concepts that democratic governments promote and protect? (Site 1)
    5·2 answers
  • Did the Republicans side with the British or with the French?
    9·2 answers
  • What was the main effect of the improvements in military technology during World War I?
    14·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!