PDF Archive

Easily share your PDF documents with your contacts, on the Web and Social Networks.

Share a file Manage my documents Convert Recover PDF Search Help Contact



GRADED3.pdf


Preview of PDF document graded3.pdf

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Text preview


manage their own activities (From Marshall to Marshall The Supreme Court's Changing Stance
On Tribal Sovereignty). This case gave the Indigenous people so many opportunities to finally
live the life they wanted. Although theses people still had rights to fight for, this at least allowed

Michelle Nicole Boyer 10/22/15 5:45 PM
Comment [10]: NO. The Supreme Court
absolutely did not agree to this in 1831.
Michelle Nicole Boyer 10/22/15 5:46 PM
Comment [11]: What? Do you mean
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia? Because that
case certainly did not give them the right to
have control over themselves.

them to have some form of control over their people. Due to the ruling of this case it allowed

Michelle Nicole Boyer 10/22/15 5:45 PM
Deleted: in a sense.

tribes to become sovereign. Although the tribes were technically domestically dependent nations,

Michelle Nicole Boyer 10/22/15 5:46 PM
Comment [12]: No. Tribes are inherently
sovereign. And this case took sovereignty
away from tribes by calling them “wards of the
state” and “domestic dependent nations.”

they still lived under state privileges. This case set the Native Nations on the path to become
sovereign nations, but there were still some faults.
In the Marshall Trilogy all three cases had some source in helping Natives become a
sovereign nation. In Worcester v Georgia the debate was whether or not Georgia had any
authority over Cherokee Nation. The Marshall ruling was that the laws of Georgia have no force

Michelle Nicole Boyer 10/22/15 5:47 PM
Deleted: tribes
Michelle Nicole Boyer 10/22/15 5:47 PM
Comment [13]: No
Michelle Nicole Boyer 10/22/15 5:47 PM
Comment [14]: No. There were 3 cases.
Two of them directly limited tribal
sovereignty.

over Cherokee Nation (Byrn, 9 Sept. 2015). Due to the ruling of this case it allowed the

Michelle Nicole Boyer 10/22/15 5:47 PM
Formatted: Font:Italic

Cherokee Nation to have jurisdiction over their own lands. Georgia wanted the power and

Michelle Nicole Boyer 10/22/15 5:47 PM
Deleted: versus

control, but with the ruling of the case Andrew Jackson had to enforce it. In the end courts order

Michelle Nicole Boyer 10/22/15 5:48 PM
Deleted: Jonathan Marshall Trilogy

was not enforced (Byrn, 9 Sept. 2015). Although the ruling was not enforced it still allowed the

Michelle Nicole Boyer 10/22/15 5:48 PM
Deleted: People wanted control over the
Indigenous people, but the Indigenous people
would put up a fight.

Cherokee Nation to govern themselves which allowed them to be a sovereign nation.
The last case is Johnson v M’Intosh and through this case the Native Americans did not
come out so strong in the end. Justice Marshall ruled that Indian tribes could not sell land to

Michelle Nicole Boyer 10/22/15 5:48 PM
Deleted: power
Michelle Nicole Boyer 10/22/15 5:48 PM
Deleted: people

Supreme Court's changing stance on tribal sovereignty). This case denied the Native Nations

Michelle Nicole Boyer 10/22/15 5:49 PM
Comment [15]: NO. Jackson did NOT have
to enforce it. The Supreme Court told him to.
But he did NOT. Which you say in the next
sentence (and contradict yourself).

power, but it also put them a step back in becoming sovereign. Through each cases whether

Michelle Nicole Boyer 10/22/15 5:49 PM
Deleted: Jonathan Marshall Trilogy

private parties without consent from the federal government (From Marshall to Marshall The

Michelle Nicole Boyer 10/22/15 5:49 PM
Comment [16]: They were a sovereign
... [6]
Michelle Nicole Boyer 10/22/15 5:50 PM
Comment [17]: This was the first case...the
[7]
Michelle Nicole Boyer 10/22/15 5:50 PM
Formatted: Font:Italic
Michelle Nicole Boyer 10/22/15 5:50 PM
Deleted: versus