How did the Supreme Court rule on the Indian Removal Act?
is it Jackson's order to move the Indians west was unconstitutional.
or
The Indian Removal Act was unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court gave into Jackson and states' rights.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2959.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act
To determine how the Supreme Court ruled on the Indian Removal Act, you need to look into a specific Supreme Court case called Worcester v. Georgia (1832). This case involved two missionaries, Samuel Worcester and Elizur Butler, who were arrested for residing in Cherokee territory without a state license, as prescribed by the state of Georgia.
To find out the Supreme Court's ruling on the Indian Removal Act, you can follow these steps:
1. Research the case: Begin by searching for "Worcester v. Georgia" or "Supreme Court case on Indian Removal Act" in a search engine or legal database.
2. Read the case brief or summary: Look for case summaries or briefs that explain the background, arguments, and ultimately the judgment of the Supreme Court.
3. Understand the arguments: In this case, Samuel Worcester's argument was that the Georgia law violated the U.S. Constitution, as treaties between the United States and Native American tribes granted sovereign rights to the Cherokees on their land. Therefore, Georgia's law did not have jurisdiction over their activities.
4. Review the Supreme Court's ruling: The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled in favor of Worcester and Butler. Marshall's opinion stated that the Georgia law violated the Constitution, as it encroached on the federal government's exclusive authority to deal with Native American tribes. The Court held that the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign entity, which could not be regulated by the state of Georgia. Furthermore, the decision affirmed the power of the federal government to negotiate treaties with Native American tribes.
Based on this information, it can be concluded that the Supreme Court ruling in Worcester v. Georgia (1832) asserted the unconstitutionality of the Indian Removal Act, as Georgia's attempt to regulate the actions of the Cherokee Nation within their own territory was considered invalid.