Kellia Jones

Constitutional Law

April 7th, 2009

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)

Facts:  On December 20, 1828, the state of Georgia, fearful that the United States would not effect the removal of the Cherokee Nation tribal band from their historic lands in Georgia; enacted a series of laws which stripped the Cherokee of its rights under the laws of the state, with the intention to force the Cherokee to leave the state. John Ross, Chief of the Cherokee Nation tribal band, led a delegation to Washington in January 1829 to resolve disputes over the non-payment of annuities to the Cherokee, and to seek Federal sustainment of the boundary between the territory of the state of Georgia and the Cherokee Nation's historic tribal lands within that state.

Issue: Is The Cherokee Nation a foreign state in the sense in which the terms "foreign state" is used in the Constitution of the United States?

Holding: The Indians are acknowledged to have an unquestionable, and heretofore an unquestioned, right to the lands they occupy until that right shall be extinguished by a voluntary cession to our Government. It may well be doubted whether those tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the United States can, with strict accuracy, be denominated foreign nations. They may more correctly, perhaps, be denominated domestic dependent nations. They occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their will, which must take effect in point of possession when their right of possession ceases; meanwhile, they are in a state of pupilage. Their relations to the United States resemble that of a ward to his guardian. They look to our Government for protection, rely upon its kindness and its power, appeal to it for relief to their wants, and address the President as their Great Father. The Cherokee Nation of Indians, a foreign state, not owing allegiance to the United States, nor to any State of this union, nor to any prince, potentate or State, other than their own.

Dustin Gunnells

American Constitutional Law

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia

4/7/09

            In 1828, the state of Georgia was afraid that the United States would not effect the removal of the Cherokee Nation out of their sacred and historical land. So what they did they put out a bunch of laws and they stripped the Cherokee Nation of all of their rights. They were hoping that this would force them out of their state of Georgia. John Ross led a delegation to Washington to talk about these actions that had been put on them.

            They had every right to go to Washington and dispute these actions. Well come to find out Ross gathered support in Washington by members and others in the office but within a few months the secretary of war said that the President was going to back Georgia on their actions. This seems very bizarre but you have to remember that it was in 1828 not in the 20th century. Ross went on and on trying to protect the Cherokee land. What was talked about was trying to get the President to give them land on the west of the Mississippi River for the land that was wrongfully taken in the East. These actions failed so therefore Ross took it on to the U.S. Courts.

            The book goes on to say that claiming status as a foreign state, the Cherokee Nation of Indians brought suit in the United States Supreme Court, under the Court’s original jurisdiction, against the State of Georgia. It did so under those provisions of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution giving the Court jurisdiction in controversies in which a state of the United States or the citizens thereof, and a foreign state, citizens, of subjects thereof, are parties and original jurisdiction in all cases in which a state shall be a party.  This was a very interesting case and can not believe the actions that took place and how this was the start of Americans taking Indian Land to me.

Constitutional Law

Rutledge

Case Brief # 8

Hally Kirby

Brief: Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)

Facts of the Case:  In 1828, Georgia enacted state laws to move the Cherokees from their tribal lands of Georgia. Georgia wanted the Indians out and wanted their land. Under these various laws, the Cherokee had no rights to the land in which they had inhabited for so long. President Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act of 1830 which intentions were to take away the land from the Indians in Georgia in exchange gave them an allotment of land west of the Mississippi. The Cherokee Nations representation was being diluted and negotiations between Congress and the tribe were not going to happen. The tribe looked to the Courts for protection from the states. 

Constitutional Issues: Whether the state of Georgia could enforce its state laws upon the Cherokee nation and deny the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Ruling of the Court: The court explained that the United States is composed of Indian Territory. It is within the American history and law recognizable as a sovereign nation. Since the courts have jurisdiction with foreign nations in our commerce regulations, it can indeed have jurisdiction in regards to the Indian nation even though the terms of agreement differ from the relations with other nations. Since Indian Territory is under the title of the United States, it looks to the courts for protection just as any state would. However, asking the court to control the legislature of Georgia is questionable. Chief Justice Marshall states that “this is not the tribunal that can redress the past or prevent the future.”  The injunction by the Cherokees was denied, on the grounds that the Cherokee people, not being a state, and claiming to be independent of the United States, were a "denominated domestic dependent nation", over which the Supreme Court had no original jurisdiction.

Majority Opinion: The Cherokees acknowledge themselves to be under the sole and exclusive protection of the United States. They receive the territory allotted to them as a boon, from a master or conqueror; the right of punishing intruders into that territory is conceded, not asserted as a right; and the sole and exclusive right of regulating their trade and managing all their affairs in such manner as the government of the United States shall think proper

Dissenting Opinion:  The Cherokees are composed of a foreign state in relation to the meaning of the Constitution and are within their full scope to file a suit against the state of Georgia. This cause does comply with further judicial review from the United States because of previous and further treaties between the United States and the Indians.  Further injunctions are proper to executive further laws to protect sovereign nations, such as the Indians imposed on by Georgia laws.   

Bridget Tognazzini    

April 2, 2009

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia

Facts of the case: The facts of the case were that the Cherokee Nation which had treaties with the United States and Georgia lived there on their lands. They had been removed before and did not want to move again. The state of Georgia wanted to let the people e who was protesting the tribe being there to be able to take the land. The land was given to the Cherokees after being removed from Florida. Principal Chief John Ross went to congress to try and stop the removal of his people again. He found support, yet Pres. Jackson forced the Indian Removal act through congress through corrupt reasons. In order to try and save his people from being removed again Ross decided to not fight physical violence and use the law to his benefit. As a sovereign nation, that was engaged in treaties with the government he appealed strait to the Supreme Court to try to force the people of Georgia to listen to his demands that they owned the land and could not be removed. The Cherokee nation asked for an injunction, claiming that Georgia's state legislation had created laws which, "go directly to annihilate the Cherokees as a political society” and argued that "the Cherokee Nation [was] a foreign nation in the sense of our constitution and law" and was not subject to Georgia's jurisdiction. They asked the Supreme Court to null and void all Georgia laws extended over Cherokee lands on the grounds that they violated the U.S. Constitution, United States-Cherokee treaties, and United States intercourse laws.
Core constitutional issues: The core constitutional issue was whether the Indian tribe of Cherokee Nation was classified as a foreign state under the provisions in the constitution Article III, Section 2, to here the case to begin with.
Ruling of the Court: In a 7-2 opinion, the injunction was denied, on the grounds that the Cherokee people was not a state and claiming to be independent of the United States, were a "denominated domestic dependent nation", over which they had no original jurisdiction. Although the Court determined that it did not have original jurisdiction in this case, the Court held open the possibility that it yet might rule in favor of the Cherokee on an appeal from a lower court. Which happened in Worcester v. Georgia.
Majority opinion: The majority opinion was that the Cherokee Nation was not sovereign and had no rights to sue in court because it was a “denominated domestic dependent nation”
Concurring opinion: Johnson and Baldwin concurred with Marshal’s majority opinion, but on different grounds. Baldwin states that they believed there was no plaintiff in the case at all. Because if they can sue as a sovereign nation then all the tribes could and that would be wrong to have hear all the cases in the Supreme court in domestic problems of other nations.
Dissenting opinion: Story and Thompson dissented with the majority. Thompson stated that he believed that the court did have original jurisdiction and was the Cherokee Nation was entitled to apply for an injunction, he also because he believed it to be correct looked at the case and believed that the court had the right to force Georgia to do as the Cherokee’s wanted.

Angela Pait

Johnson v. McIntosh

 Procedural History

A title to lands under grants to private individuals made by Indian tribes or nations northwest of the River Ohio in 1773 and 1775 could not be recognized in the courts of the United States.  Discovery of  the original foundation of titles to land on the American soil between the different European nations whose conquests and settlements were made here.  Recognition of the same principle in the wars, negotiations, and treaties between the different European powers. The adoption of the same principle by the United States. The exclusive right of the British government to the lands occupied by the Indians has passed to that of the United States. Foundation and limitation of the right of conquest. Application of the principle of the right of conquest to the case of the Indian savages. Nature of the Indian title, as subordinate to the absolute ultimate title of the government.

Legal Issue

 Who has the right to sell land Indians or the Government?

Facts of Case

 The facts, as stated in the case agreed, show the authority of the chiefs who executed this transference so far as it could be given by their own people, and likewise show that the particular tribes for whom these chiefs acted were in rightful possession of the land they sold. The inquiry, therefore, is in a great measure confined to the power of Indians to give, and of private individuals to receive, a title which can be sustained in the courts of this country.

Statement of Rule

The Indians were a conquered people and therefore they had the right to occupancy but not the right to sell the land.

Reasoning

They were a conquered people by the Europeans. The Europeans had a right to discovery.

Bridget Tognazzini    

April 2, 2009

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia

Facts of the case: The facts of the case were that the Cherokee Nation which had treaties with the United States and Georgia lived there on their lands. They had been removed before and did not want to move again. The state of Georgia wanted to let the people e who was protesting the tribe being there to be able to take the land. The land was given to the Cherokees after being removed from Florida. Principal Chief John Ross went to congress to try and stop the removal of his people again. He found support, yet Pres. Jackson forced the Indian Removal act through congress through corrupt reasons. In order to try and save his people from being removed again Ross decided to not fight physical violence and use the law to his benefit. As a sovereign nation, that was engaged in treaties with the government he appealed strait to the Supreme Court to try to force the people of Georgia to listen to his demands that they owned the land and could not be removed. The Cherokee nation asked for an injunction, claiming that Georgia's state legislation had created laws which, "go directly to annihilate the Cherokees as a political society” and argued that "the Cherokee Nation [was] a foreign nation in the sense of our constitution and law" and was not subject to Georgia's jurisdiction. They asked the Supreme Court to null and void all Georgia laws extended over Cherokee lands on the grounds that they violated the U.S. Constitution, United States-Cherokee treaties, and United States intercourse laws.
Core constitutional issues: The core constitutional issue was whether the Indian tribe of Cherokee Nation was classified as a foreign state under the provisions in the constitution Article III, Section 2, to here the case to begin with.
Ruling of the Court: In a 7-2 opinion, the injunction was denied, on the grounds that the Cherokee people was not a state and claiming to be independent of the United States, were a "denominated domestic dependent nation", over which they had no original jurisdiction. Although the Court determined that it did not have original jurisdiction in this case, the Court held open the possibility that it yet might rule in favor of the Cherokee on an appeal from a lower court. Which happened in Worcester v. Georgia.
Majority opinion: The majority opinion was that the Cherokee Nation was not sovereign and had no rights to sue in court because it was a “denominated domestic dependent nation”
Concurring opinion: Johnson and Baldwin concurred with Marshal’s majority opinion, but on different grounds. Baldwin states that they believed there was no plaintiff in the case at all. Because if they can sue as a sovereign nation then all the tribes could and that would be wrong to have hear all the cases in the Supreme court in domestic problems of other nations.
Dissenting opinion: Story and Thompson dissented with the majority. Thompson stated that he believed that the court did have original jurisdiction and was the Cherokee Nation was entitled to apply for an injunction, he also because he believed it to be correct looked at the case and believed that the court had the right to force Georgia to do as the Cherokee’s wanted.

Margaret Dawson

Greg Brown

                                                                                                               04-06-2009

Worcester v. Georgia

     The state of Georgia passed a law that prohibited “white persons” from residing within the Cherokee nation without a state issued license and without having taken an oath swearing allegiance to the state of Georgia”.  Samuel Worcester resided on Cherokee land without either the permit or having taken the allegiance oath.  State officials arrested Worcester, charged and convicted him in state court.  Worcester was sentenced to four years hard labor.  State court rejected Worcester’s claim that the law was unconstitutional because the United States Constitution gave power to Congress concerning Indian affairs.  Worcester appealed to the Supreme Court. 

     In a six to one decision the court ruled that the act in which Worcester was prosecuted was unconstitutional and void.  The Georgia law is unconstitutional because the Cherokee nation is a sovereign nation and within its rights to govern themselves and also all persons who reside in that nation.  The  law that attempts to govern the Cherokee nation is unconstitutional because it attempts to establish state control over the Cherokee nation.  The court agreed with Worchester in ruling that matters concerning the Cherokee nation belongs under the jurisdiction of Congress and that the state has no power within the Cherokee nation. The court further stated that “treaties and laws of the United States contemplate the Indian territory as completely separated from that state and provides that all intercourse with them shall be carried on exclusively by the government of the union”.  The court added that just because the Cherokee nation is a weaker government it does not mean that it should “surrender its independence”.

 

                                                                                    Michelle Grimmer

                                                                                   Case Brief for Worcester v. Georgia

                                                                                        Constitutional Law

                                                                                            April 7, 2009

            Does the state of Georgia have the authority to regulate the intercourse between citizens of its state and members of the Cherokee Nation?

            In September 1831, Samuel A. Worcester and others, all non-Native Americans, were indicted in the supreme court for the county of Gwinnett in the state of Georgia for "residing within the limits of the Cherokee nation without a license" and "without having taken the oath to support and defend the constitution and laws of the state of Georgia." They were indicted under an 1830 act of the Georgia legislature entitled "an act to prevent the exercise of assumed and arbitrary power by all persons, under pretext of authority from the Cherokee Indians." Among other things, Worcester argued that the state could not maintain the prosecution because the statute violated the Constitution, treaties between the United States and the Cherokee nation, and an act of Congress entitled "an act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes." Worcester was convicted and sentenced to "hard labor in the penitentiary for four years." The U.S. Supreme Court received the case on a writ of error.

            No. In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice John Marshall, the Court held that the Georgia act, under which Worcester was prosecuted, violated the Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States. Noting that the "treaties and laws of the United States contemplate the Indian territory as completely separated from that of the states; and provide that all intercourse with them shall be carried on exclusively by the government of the union," Chief Justice Marshall argued, "The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct community occupying its own territory in which the laws of Georgia can have no force. The whole intercourse between the United States and this nation, is, by our constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States." The Georgia act thus interfered with the federal government's authority and was unconstitutional. Justice Henry Baldwin dissented for procedural reasons and on the merits.

Information for this brief was found on April 7, 2009 at The Oyez Project, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1832/1832_0

Crystal Russell

Constitutional Law

April 6, 2009

Worcester v. Georgia

            Worcester v. Georgia was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that Cherokee Native Americans were entitled to federal protection from the actions of state governments which would infringe on the tribe’s sovereignty. Georgia law required all whites living in Cherokee Indian Territory to obtain a state license. Seven missionaries refused to obey the state law and were arrested, convicted, and sentenced to four years of hard labor for violating the state licensing law. They also refused to obey the military when they were asked to leave the state. They appealed their case to the Supreme Court of the United States, arguing that the laws they had been convicted under were unconstitutional because states have no power or authority to pass laws concerning sovereign Indian Nations. The missionaries Samuel Austin Worcester and Elizur Butler were targeted by Georgia because of their influence with and support of Cherokee resistance against removal. It was understood that if they had applied for state licenses to reside among the Cherokees, the licenses would have been denied. The Georgia state courts had previously been deferential to Worcester because of his federal appointment as postmaster to New Echota, the Cherokee capital. Chief Justice John Marshall laid out in this opinion the relationship between the Indian nations and the United States is that of nations. He argued that the United States, in the character of the federal government, inherited the rights of Great Britain as they were held by that nation. The court ruled that the Cherokee nation was a “distinct community” with self – government” in which the laws of Georgia can have no force,” establishing the doctrine that the national government of the United States, and not individual states, had authority in Indian affairs. President Andrew Jackson has often been quoted as defying the Supreme Court with the words: ‘John Marshall has made his decision; not let him enforce it!” In 1835, a dissident faction of Cherokees signed a removal treaty, the Treaty of New Echota. Jackson actively lobbied the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty in 1836, where it passed by a majority of one vote. In 1838, under President Martin Van Buren, this led to the forcible relocation by the U.S. Army of the Cherokees to Indian Territory in what would become known as the Trail of Tears.

                                                         4/6/09

Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

            Facts: Worcester and others, all non-Native Americans were indicted in the Supreme Court for not following the rules in Georgia. The rules that apply in this state during this time was that if an non-Native American was going to reside within the limits of the Cherokee nation then they would need a license. They did not have one at the time that they were apprehended. Also they had to take the oath to support and defend the constitution and laws of the state of Georgia, which they did not also do. This law came from 1830 act of the Georgia legislature.

            Issue: Is Does the state of Georgia have the authority to regulate the intercourse between citizens of its state and members of the Cherokee Nation?

            Ruling: the courts held that the law in which Worchester was taken in for violated the Constitutional law. Saying that  “treaties and laws of the United States contemplate the Indian territory as completely separated from that of the states; and provide that all intercourse with them shall be carried on exclusively by the government of the union," Chief Justice Marshall argued. Georgia had no right to enforce the laws because they did not apply to the Nation which governs them.

Dissenting opinion: Baldwin gave an opinion but is was based on merit and procedural errors.

Tasha Parker

                                                April 6, 2009

Brief:  United States v. Kagama (1886)

The case is about is divided between the circuit judge and district judge in the united states for the district of California. This case is about two Native Americans whom are indicted for committing murder on the Native American reservation of Hoopa Valley in California and the person who was murdered was said also be form the reservation. The indictment was for two counts that Kagama, alias Pactah Billy, an Indian, murdered Iyouse, alias Ike, another Indian, at Humboldt County, in the state of California, within the limits of the Hoopa Valley reservation, and it charges Mahawaha, alias Ben, also an Indian, with aiding and abetting in the murder. 

It was said that those Indians whom commit crimes of such degree even on a reservation was subject to same punishment and legal obligations as those whom are just normal American citizens not living or belonging to these Indian reservations. Constitutional issues was with the provisions that were made with section 9.

It will be seen at once that the nature of the offense (murder) is one which in most all cases of its commission is punishable by the laws of the states, and within the jurisdiction of their courts. The distinction is claimed to be that the offense under the statute is committed by an Indian, that it is committed on a reservation set apart within the state for residence of the tribe of Indians by the United States, and the fair inference is that the offending Indian shall belong to that or some other tribe. It does not interfere with the process of the state courts within the reservation, neither with the operation of state laws upon white people found there. Its effect is confined to the acts of an Indian of some tribe, of a criminal character, committed within the limits of the reservation.

Josh Kerr

4/7/2009

United States vs. Kagama

Kagama was Klamath Indian accused of the murder of another Klamath Indian by the name of Iyouse.  Prior to this crime, Congress passed the Major Crimes Act of 1885 which clearly placed certain major crimes in the jurisdiction of the federal government and its courts.  Murder was one of these major crimes.  Kagama’s case was heard by the federal court in San Francisco, but was left undecided because of the question of jurisdiction.  The question remained was because of the crime took place on a Hoopa reservation, so there was a question as to whether federal, local, or tribal laws were to be followed.

The core constitutional question was whether the federal government had jurisdiction over crimes committed by Native Americans, by other Native Americans, and on Native American land.  This was a major test of the Major Crimes Act of 1885 and the sovereignty of the Native American peoples on their own lands.

The court rules unanimously that the Major Crimes Act of 1885 was constitutional and therefore that Kagama’s could be prosecuted in the federal court system.  Specifically, this meant that the indictment handed down by the San Francisco court would stand.

In the unanimous decision, Justice Samuel Freeman Miller mentions many other cases dealing with the laws of the United States and how they pertain to the Native Americans.  In the end, he cites the poor conditions and vulnerability of the Native Americans at that time.  He says that because they find themselves in such a rough life as a result of the federal government’s displacing them, that they Native American’s deserve the protection of the federal government and specifically its laws.

While this may not have been the intent of the Justices’ decision, this case was a landmark in the statement of the plenary nature of federal law.  This is to say that Congress from this point on was empowered to do with the Native Americans whatever they wished and this case served as the groundwork for the Dawes Act, which further violated the rights and sovereignty of Native Americans.