Did Andrew Jackson live up the "Common man" in Worcester vs. Georgia or did he fail?
What's your opinion? Why?
Ms Sue is right with the word "Opinion". The legal authority, if any, Jackson had in the case over Georgia is unclear and arguable.
You are maybe trying to apply "common man" to indians, and I am not certain that term applied then.
I really don't know because all he did was being in favor of getting rid of the Cherokees and worcester vs. georgia was the beginning og the trail of tears
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia
You need to define "common man" as people in Jackson's time defined it.
To determine whether Andrew Jackson lived up to the idea of being the "Common man" in the Worcester v. Georgia case, we need to examine the case itself and Jackson's actions as the President of the United States during that time.
Worcester v. Georgia was a Supreme Court case in 1832 that involved the state of Georgia's attempt to assert authority over the Cherokee Nation's lands within its boundaries. The court ruled in favor of the Cherokee Nation, declaring that Georgia's laws did not apply to the Cherokee lands. This decision was significant because it affirmed the sovereignty of Native American tribes and the federal government's role in dealing with them.
However, Andrew Jackson, who was President at the time, opposed the Court's decision. He is famously reported to have said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" Jackson's statement reflected his disregard for the authority of the Supreme Court in this matter and his support for Georgia's claim over the Cherokee lands.
This brings us to the question of whether Jackson lived up to the "Common man" ideals. The concept of the "Common man" during Jackson's presidency referred to his popular image as a champion of the people, the common citizens, and defenders of their rights against the political elite.
In the case of Worcester v. Georgia, Jackson's opposition to the Supreme Court's decision and his support for Georgia's actions could be seen as contradicting his "Common man" image. By disregarding the Court's ruling and favoring the interests of the state over the sovereignty of Native American tribes, some argue that Jackson failed to uphold the principles of fairness and equality associated with the "Common man."
To recap, Andrew Jackson's actions concerning the Worcester v. Georgia case do not align with the idea of him living up to the "Common man." His opposition to the Supreme Court's decision and his support for the state of Georgia's actions indicate a deviation from the principles of fairness and equality typically associated with the concept.