Why Is The Marshall Court Important

The precursor of the two Supreme Court cases that we are discussing started in 1828 when Georgia developed laws to take away the basic human rights of the Cherokee Indians. The laws also said that the Cherokee could be removed from their lands. The Cherokee nation said in

A lot of court cases are historically important and sometimes they the result in changing certain laws. For example, the Brown v. Board of Ed court case ended racial segregation in the U.S., and the Gideon v. Wainwright case required the state to provide low-income defendants with an attorney if they could not afford one. These two cases changed the Federal Constitution against racism and made it possible for all citizens to have the same rights in Untied State, and everyone experiences these changes on a daily basis. Another court case made a change in the Federal Constitution is Tinker v. Des Moines. Tinker v. Des Moines court case took a big part during the Vietnam War because it brought even more attention to the

filed with the U.S. Supreme Court an action challenging the authority of Georgia's laws. The Cherokees disputed that the laws desecrated their chief rights as a nation and criminally interfered into their treaty relationship with the United States. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the court held that it did not have the authority to strike down Georgia's laws. In dicta that became particularly important in American Indian law, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that the Cherokees constituted a "private, dependent nation" that existed under the custody of the United States.

The decision really helped decide the border between the constitutionally executive and judicial branches of the American government. The case had resulted into a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury. Marbury also petitioned the Supreme Court to strengthen the new Secretary of State in order to deliver the documents. The Court had found that Madison's refusal to deliver the agency was both illegal and fixable. The petition later on in the year was refused.

When the Cherokee Nation sued Georgia state they believed they were going to get justice. In some part during the ruling it was in their favor, they were named to be part of the United States and were Americans not Indians. The supreme court which was mostly ruled by Chief Justice John Marshall; had decided that they had no rights to any of their lands. They also denied them to self-govern because their lack of jurisdiction and they had no court power. Which the Cherokee people were against because they wanted to have full control of their land. It was their land they wanted to be able to do anything they wanted with it and set their own rules ruled. John Marshal disagreed with what they wanted to do and ruled his way. Which then led to Worcester V. Georgia. The verdict in this trial was that they could take away Cherokee land at any given time. They had made it clear that the land of Cherokee was not part of the United State; even though it should had been part of US territory. At the end, they could be forced to relocate and this

Next- The Court determined that the Cherokees were “a domestic dependent nation” rather than “a sovereign nation.” By refusing to hear the case the Court left the Cherokees at the mercy of the state of Georgia. The Georgia Legislature meanwhile had passed a law requiring anyone other than Cherokees who lived on Indian territory

Samuel Worcester challenged the constitutionality of the Georgia act because they had convicted him of residing in the Cherokee nation without obtaining a state permit and swearing an oath of loyalty to the state. Worcester wanted to challenge the authority of those who imprisoned him and at the same time establish the rights of the Native Americans in the United States, which were being oppressed by people like Andrew Jackson, who believed that “philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the condition in which it was found by our forebears,” and that we should instead move the Native Americans so they can once again enjoy a land free of our “cities, towns, and prosperous farms,” even though these Native Americans had conformed to our society and in fact wanted to stay in their ancestral lands (Jackson 1).

     In Georgia, the Cherokee Indians had developed a lifestyle that included schools, mills, and turnpikes. In the 1820's, under pressure from the state to give up their lands, they wrote a constitution, hired lawyers, and sued in the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall upheld the rights of the Cherokee against Georgia. However, Jackson refused to carry out the decision that ordered Georgia to return Cherokee lands. He is quoted as to have said, "Marshall has made his opinion, now let him enforce it."

By the 1830s, the Americans wanted to expand their territory. To do so, meant taking-over ancestral lands from the Native Americans. In the court case Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the Cherokees fought for defense against the Indian Removal Act and against the Georgia Legislature's nullification of Cherokee laws. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Cherokee had "an unquestionable right" to their lands, although they were not a foreign state. According to the Constitution, the Cherokee nation, a domestic and dependent nation, could not sue in a United States court over Georgia's voiding their right to self-rule. Although it was a devastating case for the Cherokee nation against Georgia, it cast doubt on the constitutionality of the Indian Removal Act. In 1830 a Georgia law had required whites in the territory to get licenses authorizing their residence there, and to take an oath of allegiance to the state. Two New England missionaries among the Indians refused and were sentenced to four years of hard labor. On appeal their case reached the Supreme Court as Worcester v. Georgia (1832), and

This case was given to the US Supreme Court so that the US officials could not force their government into Cherokee territory. This article gives important details of how the case was decided and how the conclusion of Cherokee nation not being a self-governed nation. This article informs readers why the Cherokees’ felt the need to ask for complete control of their nation and why the Supreme Court refused to give the Cherokees’ their independence. This article details the many efforts women tried to defeat the Indian Removal.

The Court’s final decision was unanimous and it denied Marbury’s request for the writ of mandamus. Marbury never received his appointment. This case is significant because it established the concept of judicial review. The Constitution does not specifically grant the judiciary this power. Judicial review allows federal courts to review laws and determine if they are constitutional or not. This gives the judiciary the power to void any laws that are found to violate any part of the Constitution. Therefore, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the federal courts the authority to hear mandamus cases was unconstitutional. Ironically, Chief Justice Marshall is the person who was the Secretary of State under Adams that sealed Marbury’s appointment.

In 1831, the Cherokee nation went to court against the state of Georgia. They were disputing the state’s attempt to hold jurisdiction over their territory. Unfortunately, because they are not under the laws of the constitution, the Indian’s right to court was denied. It was not until 1835 that the Cherokee finally agreed to sign the treaty, giving up their Georgia land for that of Oklahoma.

. . regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The Constitution further enumerates these powers denied to the states in Article I section x. The state of Georgia challenged the federal government’s power over states rights, a precursor to the Civil War, when it challenged the trust relationship and the autonomy of the Cherokee. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall in three decisions (Marshall Trilogy) upheld the United States’ federal power, defined the responsibility of the doctrine of federal trust, and clarified the sovereignty of Indian nations: Johnson v McIntosh 1823, Cherokee v Georgia 1831, Worcester v Georgia 1832.

In United States v. McBratney (1881), McBratney tried to argue that the federal government had no authority over a crime that occurred on Indian Territory, despite the fact that both parties were white. The Court ruled that since Colorado had not expressly renounced jurisdiction over the Ute Indian

Marshall Law is a false hope and a double edge sword. People will become creative and make their own weapons much like they do in prison. People will lie on background checks to get a hold of weapons. Its a hasty law that will cripple ammunition departments and weapons manufacturing organizations as well as upset many veterans. Job availability and employment ratio will decrease. A limit law should not be used for political gain and false hope. What it can and probably will do is slow or stop the ingenuity of weapons technology advancements that could actually keep us safer. It might allow our enemies to gain more practice at surpassing us in their own manufacturing of weapons...think about it. What are we really setting ourselves up for as