How did president Jackson respond to the ruling in Worcester v. Georgia?

2 answers:

7 0

Andrew Jackson declined to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision, thus allowing states to enact further legislation damaging the to the tribes.

34kurt3 years ago

4 0

In the Worcester v. Georgia case (1832), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the states did not have the right to impose regulations on Native American land because they have certain sovereignty within the nation, and therefore the Georgia act that forced the Cherokee Nation to leave their land located in Georgia (The Indian Removal Act) was unconstitutional.

However, this decision was never enforced because President Jackson decided to ignore it. Instead, he sent federal troops to take over the Cherokee Nation's land and to force the removal of the Native Americans, and the Supreme Court did not do anything about it in order to avoid a political conflict between the Judicial and the Executive branch.

You might be interested in

How did World War I hurt businesses in Europe even after the war?

Irina-Kira [14]

Correct answer choice is :

<h2>A) Businesses struggled to replace skilled workers killed or severely injured in the fighting.</h2><h2 /><h3>Explanation:</h3><h3 />

From 1915 the US got tons of loans to the UK to support them in their war effort. It is not a range to say that WWI was the significant factor in providing to the Roaring 20s when the US economy expanded. The long-term outcome was that US engagement in the warheads straight to the Great Depression and WWII.

4 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

I need help pls im stuck on the problem

Maksim231197 [3]

Please show the problem if you want it answered.

6 0

3 years ago

All of the following are true of the Dred Scott v. Sandford except A. Scott could only sue in state courts. B. living in a free

vlada-n [284]

The answer that is not true is A: "Scott could only sue in state courts."

Whether Dred Scott, as a slave, had any legal right to sue in court was a matter that applied whether talking about state or federal courts. When Scott's suit was rejected by a state of Missouri court, Scott and his supporters managed to bring the case into a federal court, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. Though the Supreme Court at the time ruled that Scott had no right to bring the suit because he was a slave and not a citizen (point D above), the case gave Chief Justice Roger Taney opportunity to make further statements regarding the slavery issue, including points B and C in your list above.

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Which describes the relationship between religion and

Ann [662]

The statement that describes the relationship between religion and government in the Massachusetts colony is "Puritans dictated both religious and governmental matters." Option C

This is further explained below.

<h3>What are Puritans?</h3>

Generally, The Puritans were a group of English Protestants who lived during the 16th and 17th centuries and aimed to rid the Church of England of Roman Catholic practices.

They did this because they believed that England's Church of England had not been irreversibly altered and that it had to become more Protestant.

In conclusion, "Puritans dictated both religious and political concerns in the Massachusetts colony," is the statement that depicts the connection between religion and government in that colony. Option C is the correct answer.