Worcester V. Georgia Case Study

The case of Kent V. United States is a historical case in the United States. The Kent case helped lead the way in the development of a list of eight criteria and principles. This creation of these criteria and principle has helped protect the offender and public for more than forty-five years. Which as a reason has forever changed the process of waving a juvenile into the adult system (Find Law, 2014).

In 1838, the Cherokee Indian Removal Act forced Cherokee and Creek Indians out of Georgia on a 5,045 mile walk all the way to the farthest west land that the United States had at the time, Oklahoma[1]. This event is now known as The Trail of Tears known for the many tears shed by the Indians that had to travel on the trail. The main reason for their removal from the premises was because of the gold that was discovered in the land of the now Hall County or Dahlonega. People have their opinions on whether the Creek and Cherokee should have been removed, to be honest, I am on the fence about this topic. I can recognize the great injustice that was made to the Indians but I also see that this action allowed for growth in Georgia and its economy, which contributed to growth for the United States as a whole. If I had to choose, I would say that the Cherokee Indians should not have been removed from their territory. For one, they were settled in their land before the english came and were in a way civilized. Two, the Indian Removal Act should never have been approved and was invalid for a few reasons. And finally, it was immoral to remove them from their land and didn't have any right to do so.

When the Georgia government realized that Worcester was helping the Cherokee, they arrested him a total of three times; the last time, he was convicted along with other missionaries and sentenced to four years in prison. The Cherokee tribe had paid a lawyer to represent Worcester in his case Worcester v. Georgia in the U.S. Supreme court. The Supreme court ruled in Worcester’s favor declaring that the Cherokees possessed the right to live free from the state’s trespasses. Even though the Supreme Court ruled in Worcester’s favor, Georgia ignored the ruling and did not remove the missionaries from prison and continued to remove Cherokees from their land. President Jackson also did not enforce the ruling and told the Cherokee people to either leave the land or fall under Georgia’s jurisdiction. (Garrison, 2004) In the end, tens of thousands of Cherokee people were forced by federal soldiers to leave their homes a move west from Georgia to Oklahoma in what many know as the “trail of tears” (Foner, 2012)

In 1830, gold was found in Western Georgia. Unfortunately, The Cherokee had lots of land there. Settlers ignored that and began to invade western Georgia. President Andrew Jackson then decided to sign the Indian Removal Act, because he believed that assimilation wouldn’t work. This act gave him power to order the removal of any tribe at any time. In 1835, The Treaty of New Echota was signed, which said that the Cherokee would leave their land and walk to Oklahoma. They refused to leave so after two years, they were forced out. Andrew Jackson and the U.S. Government had many reasons for the removal of the Cherokee people, but the Cherokee also had many reasons for why it shouldn’t have happened. Eventually, their removal had devastating effects on the Cherokee culture.

On May 28, 1830, the Indian Removal Act was passed. It stated that the Native American were to be removed from the Southern states (Indian Removal Act). The act ended the Native American’s right to live in the states under their own traditional laws (Indian Removal Act). They were given the options to assimilate and acknowledge the United States’ laws or leave (Indian Removal Act). They were forced to leave their land, their homes, everything they ever knew or face the consequences. They were forced to go to a land that they knew nothing about, and hope that they would be able to survive where ever they ended up. When the Cherokee were forced to leave, out of the 18,000 that left 4,000 died on the way (Primary Documents) As a result of all of the death on the trail, it was named the Trail of Tears (Primary Documents).

Going against the Supreme Court, which is the supreme law of the land, in the Worcester vs Georgia case demonstrates how Andrew Jackson abused his power as president. John Marshall, the chief justice at the time, ruled that the United States did not have possession or legal jurisdiction over Native American land, and no individual states had authority in Native American affairs. However, Jackson went above this, since the court did not order marshals to enforce it. In the Indian Removal packet, it was stated that in May 1830, Jackson signed the Indian removal act to exchange land with Native Americans. To do this, he coerced tribe leaders, sometimes by getting them drunk or high, into signing away their land through removal treaties. In the

The case of Terry v. Ohio took place in 1968. This case involved a Detective who had witnessed three suspicious males patrol a street and stare into a specific window multiple times. With reasonable suspicion and probable cause, Detective McFadden assumed one of them could be armed. He then took one of the males and patted him down to find that he had a pistol on him. He patted the victim down for reasons of protecting himself and others in the community. The Fourth Amendment does include, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Israel, LaFave). The people who are being frisked are for reasons that the officer wants to protect himself and others, not just for no reason. People do have a right to their personal, private property and the stop and frisk, or sometimes know as a terry stop, is approved if the officer has reasons to believe the person could be carrying a weapon or a threat to society. The officer had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to search the male and was able to legally with the Fourth Amendment. The stop and frisk action has been around for almost 50 years. Is it time to put a stop to it because people think it is unconstitutional, or to change the way we view

The U.S. Supreme Court Decision of Warford v. Lexington News-Herald is an example of how the court defined an assistant basketball coach at the University of Pittsburgh as a private figure. Reggie Warford complained about allegations of recruiting improperties that he committed as an assistant basketball coach. The issue at hand was originally posted in the 1985 Lexington Herald, but were reprinted in 1986 under a special NCAA reprint publication entitled 1985: A Year of Crisis in College Athletics. The 1986 publication is the source of the libel dispute.

The “Trail of Tears,” was an unmitigated disaster-at least for the Native American Tribes involved. – (Page 269) “As the population grew, white citizens demanded that their governments, at both the state and national levels, do something about the Native American tribes in their midst who held claims to land …” – (Page 249) “The United States had recognized the Cherokee as a nation in a number of treaties, and in 1827 delegates of this tribe initiated action to draft a constitution that would more formally recognize this status.” – (Page 249). This caused a problem with the constitution, because new states could not be established in pre-existing state. “Georgia, where most of the Cherokee lived, opposed the plan and called for the removal of all Native American.” – (Page 249). In fact, the Cherokee nation fought back. “The case reached the United States Supreme Court, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.” – (Page 250). The Cherokee lost; but a year later Chief Justice John Marshall “ruled that the state had no right to extend sovereignty over the Cherokee within its borders.” Andrew Jackson disagreed with the chief justice, and wanted for the chief justice to enforce his decision.

Hannah Patrick, one has only to look at some of the cases such as Coker v. Georgia to feel that the death penalty does not violate the Eight Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, the U.S. Supreme Court says it is excessive punishment for the rape of an adult woman and that it violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. In Coker v. Georgia, the defendant raped a woman and stabbed her to death. Eight months later he kidnapped another woman, raped her twice, and abandoned her to die after biting her severely. While he was serving multiple life terms in prison, he escaped and kidnapped, raped, and robbed a third woman at knifepoint (LeSage, 1978). I do not see how you can read about this case and decide as the U.S. Supreme Court did.

In 1830, congress passed President Andrew Jacksons Indian Removal Act. This policy allowed the United States government to extinguish the Cherokee, Chickasaws, Choctaws, Creeks, Seminole and many other tribes title to their land. The Indians had to leave the land and life they had always known in the Southeastern United States behind. This disturbing event was named the Trail of Tears because many Native Americans died during the process of marching to an area west of the Mississippi River due to disease, starvation, and the long journey.

In 1832 gold was found on the land of Native American tribes. The government wanted to get the gold for themselves, so that pains many Native Americans for their land. One group of Native Americans, the Cherokees, refused to give up their land. There was a court ruling in the case Worcester vs. Georgia which officially made it unconstitutional to remove the Cherokees from their land. After the ruling Jackson was quoted in saying "John Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it." Jackson then brought military forces into the Native Americans land and force them to walk to reservations. The trail that they walked to get to their reservations is now called the trail of tears because an estimated 7,000 to 13,000 Cherokees died along the path.

In the court case Worcester v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1832 that the Cherokee Indians and Samuel Worcester created a nation holding distinct sovereign powers. This decision did not protect the Cherokees from being removed from their tribal birthplace in the Southeast.

In 1830, the Indian Removal Act called for removal of resisting Southern Native American tribes from their homelands. The tribes maintained resistance. In 1831 and 1832, the Cherokees went to the courts. And in the 1832 decision Worcester v. Georgia, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that the Cherokees had their own land and that they did not need to follow

Both thought of Natives as wards of the state that could be controlled by the government, but had very different ideas on what to do with them. For Jackson, this culminated in the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Though Jackson saw Natives as people, he did not see them as equal to whites, once again showing his conservative Southern ways. To expand the territory of the US, Jackson ordered the four remaining southern tribes to assimilate or move farther westward. His conviction that the Native Americans must be moved drove him to negotiate the terms of the Indian Removal Act himself, the only act Jackson himself pushed for in his eight year presidency. The Cherokees were the only tribe to refuse to go, and gained judiciary backing from the Supreme Court after presenting the cases Cherokee Nation v. Georgia in 1831 and Worcester v. Georgia in 1832. Jackson’s immense support for the Native migration, despite the established unconstitutionality of it, manifested as advising Georgia to slowly move onto Cherokee territory, all the while secretly negotiating a treaty with rebels in the tribe. Jackson’s intense desire to preserve his own ideals of white supremacy and Manifest Destiny, even if it meant ignoring the rights of an entire race, exemplified his conservative nature, can be seen most clearly in his intentional