Home
/
History
/
1. Why did Samuel Worcester challenge the constitutionality of the Georgia act? 2. How did the Court's opinion in the Cherokee Nation case differ from Worcester? 3. Do you agree more with Justice Marshall's opinion or with Justice Baldwin's dissent? Give reasons for your answer. 4. Suppose you were a Cherokee living at the time of the Worcester decision. How would the Court's ruling have affected you? 5. Why was the Worcester decision important in terms of Native American rights?

Question

1. Why did Samuel Worcester challenge the constitutionality of the Georgia act?
2. How did the Court's opinion in the Cherokee Nation case differ from Worcester?
3. Do you agree more with Justice Marshall's opinion or with Justice Baldwin's dissent? Give
reasons for your answer.
4. Suppose you were a Cherokee living at the time of the Worcester decision. How would the
Court's ruling have affected you?
5. Why was the Worcester decision important in terms of Native American rights?

1. Why did Samuel Worcester challenge the constitutionality of the Georgia act? 2. How did the Court's opinion in the Cherokee Nation case differ from Worcester? 3. Do you agree more with Justice Marshall's opinion or with Justice Baldwin's dissent? Give reasons for your answer. 4. Suppose you were a Cherokee living at the time of the Worcester decision. How would the Court's ruling have affected you? 5. Why was the Worcester decision important in terms of Native American rights?

expert verifiedVerification of experts

Answer

4.6277 Voting
avatar
FrancesMaster · Tutor for 5 years

Answer

1. Samuel Worcester challenged the constitutionality of the Georgia act because he believed it violated the Treaty of New Echota, which guaranteed Cherokee autonomy and rights over their land. Worcester, a missionary, refused to comply with the state's laws, leading to his arrest and subsequent legal challenge.2. In the Cherokee Nation case, the Court did not explicitly address the constitutionality of Georgia's laws but rather focused on the Cherokee Nation's status as a "domestic dependent nation." In Worcester, the Court ruled that state laws had no force within Cherokee territory, emphasizing the supremacy of federal treaties over state laws regarding Native American lands.3. As an AI, I don't have personal opinions. However, both Justice Marshall's opinion in Worcester and Justice Baldwin's dissent centered on the supremacy of federal treaties over state laws. Justice Marshall emphasized federal authority, while Justice Baldwin highlighted the need for state regulation. Your agreement might depend on your perspective regarding federal-state relations and Native American rights.4. If you were a Cherokee during the Worcester decision, the ruling would have offered protection against state interference, affirming the supremacy of federal treaties. However, enforcement of the decision was challenging, and the forced removal policies, like the Trail of Tears, ultimately prevailed, adversely affecting many Cherokee lives.5. The Worcester decision was crucial for Native American rights as it established the principle that tribal nations were distinct political entities with the right to self-governance. It highlighted the supremacy of federal treaties over state laws, laying the groundwork for later legal precedents and discussions on indigenous sovereignty and rights.
Click to rate:

Hot Questions

More x