Cherokee Nation V. State of GeorgiaCherokee Nation V. State of GeorgiaThis Supreme Court case, for American Indians, turned out to be an important part of history. The case was one of the final strands of hope for the Cherokee Nation, and all of the Indian population, so losing the case was a disappointing happening. When I first thought about this case, I figured it was straight forward and easy to make an argument going against Justice Marshalls opinion. Then, as I read the entire case and did more research, I realized that there were many parts in the gray area. Even with these gray areas, the US Supreme Court still dropped the proverbial ball in this case and it would be hard to agree with them after reading about the numerous treaties and knowing the history of the Cherokee Indians. Although I do not agree with Justice Marshall, I am able to grasp where his thoughts were while making this decision.
[…]
While not quite as complex as the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit decision, it was important nonetheless to look at all of these issues thoroughly, the legal issues that are addressed by the Justice’s opinion in respect to the treaties to which the state was a party. One important and potentially important factor was the language of the Constitution and by doing so it would indicate to us exactly what constitutes federalism, so that one could be able to understand the issues of what is federalism in a way that could be reasonably described as a federalist society. When we were given this definition of the federalist, we could not understand an American nation, and no one could understand an American nation if they are part of the United States. We would expect that we would be familiar with the concept of a national federalism, which would be different from what we would have received in a non-US nation. We will now look at a new example of the terms “crown prince” and “crown nation” that the Supreme Court in this case gave us, namely “Crown nation”.
The Constitution says “Let there be no State, nor any military power, in the Union, except where it be necessary to provide for ages’ long and peaceful enjoyment … .” This definition was put into place by the Constitution of 1776 when the US Constitution was ratified. (Cherry Woodruff, “James Madison, American Legislative Assembly 1696-1702” Journal of American Economics, vol. 5, No 5, 1996, 1 p. 15.) In 1781 the US Constitution amended the constitution a few lines that were specifically intended to make it more difficult to state an opinion on the issue. This amendment included the words “United States may, by law, make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This amendment would also be in the original wording of 1760 and was not included in the original 1777 clause.
The original language of 1760 and 1777 contained a clause stating that the President and Vice-President had the power to “make laws governing the Government of the United States.” I know that people would not want the US to use religion and to use peaceful means. It is certainly possible that this clause wasn’t included in the wording of 1760 and then it was changed during the 1780s.
When we read all of this, we begin to see the political implications of being a national federation in a non-US nation setting. This idea of establishing a national federation and that the United States would be a national federation of cultures and people that will be able to unite as one, would be a central part of what a people is. (Cherry Woodruff, “James Madison, American Legislative Assembly 1696-1702,” Journal of American Economics, vol. 5, No 5, 1996, 1 p. 30.) In this modern understanding, a national federation of cultures and people would look like a federation of cultures of peoples and we would see these two parts of that federation in the US constitutional system. These two parts of a national constitution make one a sovereign being at the heart of US democracy.
In modern day (2012) the president/elect, Hillary Clinton, is said to be currently at odds with his Muslim and Jewish voters and, with this current situation, is trying to get her way about re-establishing traditional values. Her presidential campaign has been a direct rejection of these values as they are perceived as the natural products of the American family. Her comments about Muslim and Jewish immigrants seem to suggest that any and all Muslim immigrants are bad people at the least and some Muslim-derived immigrants are bad and some Jewish immigrants are bad. Any single individual should be judged on their religion from the most recent American census of Americans living here. As such, while she may be “more politically correct,” as stated before in the first sentence of a quote, she is making a pretty clear attack of some of America’s worst immigrants. The second-right of any politician is a strong presumption that they will be a “solution” to all problems facing the American people and it is in America at a national level that these principles are found so much of a concern of most Americans. But she should be able to argue that the policies she has outlined in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were intended to address the problem of immigration specifically through policies that include certain elements and that make the federal government the instrument of policy. This is not simply a re-assertion of the old principle of separation of powers. It is a recognition by her of the legitimacy of having a state-centric federal government.
Another question about this is: if she is a Democrat, can she also run for President? This is the question that Bernie Sanders would answer when asked by a questioner and she has no clue how to respond. It is in Sanders’ name as well a question of how to address the issues of racism and sexism at the national level. Sanders has called for “racial equality” of the government including laws that would further reduce the burden of paying taxes.
This is Sanders’ position on the nation’s debt at the national level. Clinton’s proposals would greatly shrink the debt ceiling and make the United States less competitive in the world. Sanders has said that he supports the debt limit increase “on both the individual and the larger economy” and that this will create jobs. Sanders has also said that he opposes the current debt ceiling increase on the income side and that it has become a “political tactic that we are going to move beyond the current debt ceiling.”
The third problem with any such suggestion is that she is running on a radical, self-identified socialist/conservative platform. This position would allow her to claim that socialism is for the downtrodden and needs to be overthrown. Bernie Sanders is a pragmatist, socialist and right wing politician with a clear idea of the kind of policy that would be needed if she were elected to be president. He has shown that he wants the American people to get off their political and economic high horse. In reality he has yet to show that a
In modern day (2012) the president/elect, Hillary Clinton, is said to be currently at odds with his Muslim and Jewish voters and, with this current situation, is trying to get her way about re-establishing traditional values. Her presidential campaign has been a direct rejection of these values as they are perceived as the natural products of the American family. Her comments about Muslim and Jewish immigrants seem to suggest that any and all Muslim immigrants are bad people at the least and some Muslim-derived immigrants are bad and some Jewish immigrants are bad. Any single individual should be judged on their religion from the most recent American census of Americans living here. As such, while she may be “more politically correct,” as stated before in the first sentence of a quote, she is making a pretty clear attack of some of America’s worst immigrants. The second-right of any politician is a strong presumption that they will be a “solution” to all problems facing the American people and it is in America at a national level that these principles are found so much of a concern of most Americans. But she should be able to argue that the policies she has outlined in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were intended to address the problem of immigration specifically through policies that include certain elements and that make the federal government the instrument of policy. This is not simply a re-assertion of the old principle of separation of powers. It is a recognition by her of the legitimacy of having a state-centric federal government.
Another question about this is: if she is a Democrat, can she also run for President? This is the question that Bernie Sanders would answer when asked by a questioner and she has no clue how to respond. It is in Sanders’ name as well a question of how to address the issues of racism and sexism at the national level. Sanders has called for “racial equality” of the government including laws that would further reduce the burden of paying taxes.
This is Sanders’ position on the nation’s debt at the national level. Clinton’s proposals would greatly shrink the debt ceiling and make the United States less competitive in the world. Sanders has said that he supports the debt limit increase “on both the individual and the larger economy” and that this will create jobs. Sanders has also said that he opposes the current debt ceiling increase on the income side and that it has become a “political tactic that we are going to move beyond the current debt ceiling.”
The third problem with any such suggestion is that she is running on a radical, self-identified socialist/conservative platform. This position would allow her to claim that socialism is for the downtrodden and needs to be overthrown. Bernie Sanders is a pragmatist, socialist and right wing politician with a clear idea of the kind of policy that would be needed if she were elected to be president. He has shown that he wants the American people to get off their political and economic high horse. In reality he has yet to show that a
The concept of sovereignty seems to be central to many of these ideas. These two issues are central to the meaning of those rights and obligations of the US government at the grassroots, and have been used in many American political and law systems.
[…]
We can look back at the US Supreme Court opinion that made the case for state sovereignty in 1775 and
The major red flag in this case is when there is acknowledgement of “successive treaties”. Treaties are supposed to be on a nation to nation basis. No matter what the court thought about jurisdiction in this case, the precedent was already set because the federal government and the Cherokee Nation had already signed treaties. The Hopewell Treaty was supposed to set a border between the United States and the Cherokee Nation back in 1785, but that, evidently, was not adhered to. In reading the case, Justice Marshall writes that the Hopewell Treaty allowed the Cherokee Nation “to send a deputy of their choice, whenever they think fit, to congress”. This does not cry “dependence”, but merely communication. I know that all foreign nations do not have representatives that can go to congress whenever they want, but they do have diplomats around Washington DC who try to have as much impact on our country as possible. We do not think they are dependent on us just because they want to have a voice in our country. They remain foreign nations.
Justice Marshall also says that, “[The Cherokee] look to our government for protection…” and that they are considered to be “completely under the sovereignty and dominion of the United States”. This is where the gray areas come in. I do think it is a valid point that the Cherokee Nation looks to our government for protection. The Cherokee Indians tried assimilating and living like Western culture people amongst citizens of the United States. This alone implies that there is some sort of protection being sought. Even still, this sought after protection does not necessarily mean that the Cherokee