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
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>
The early Islamic Empire was really good in military conquest.
Explanation:
Islam spread through military conquest, trade, pilgrimage, and missionaries. Arab Muslim forces conquered vast territories and built imperial structures over time. Most of the significant expansion occurred during the reign of the Rashidun from 632 to 661 CE, which was the reign of the first four successors of Muhammad. The caliphate, a new Islamic political structure- evolved and became more sophisticated during the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates.
Over a period of a few hundred years, Islam spread from its place of origin in the Arabian Peninsula all the way to modern Spain in the west and northern India in the east.
Food: if we go to war, the soldiers will need food to take with them, which in turn, the home country will have less of, or we might have to cut back on wholesale and instead provide for the soldiers.
Shelter: by shelter, i mean both collapsible and actual houses in the countries we are fighting in as the men will need space to stay
Artillery: by artillery, i mean literally boys and bullets, we'll need to give it to the soldiers or the companies which make the ammunition will need to prioritize the soldiers instead of the consumer
Henry the Navigator, a 15th century Portuguese prince, helped usher the Age of Discovery and the Atlantic slave trade. Henry himself wasn't a sailor or navigator but he did sponsor many exploratory sea voyages. He was born in Porto, Portugal in 1394. Although he was neither a sailor nor a navigator, he sponsored a great deal of exploration along the west coast of Africa.Henry became fascinated with Africa, A continent which the Portuguese knew little about. He developed a desire to learn about The Muslims who lived there so he could conquer them and spread Christianity.
THE STRATEGY DESCRIBED WOULD BE THEY TRICKED YOU INTO THINKING THAT YOU HAVE TO RELY ON THEM THE VINE IS THE MEANING OF LIFE AND IT IS UP TO YOU AS TO WHERE THE VINE GROS TO AND WHERE IT WITHERS UP.
Explanation: The Iroquois Confederacy were neutral throughout most of the French and Indian War but eventually allied with the British in 1758 which eventually tipped the war in the favour of the British.Nov