How did the indian removal act of 1830 go against the Worcester v Georgia ruling?
It nullified all previous treaties that protected the interests of Georgians against Cherokee.
It ignored the fact that native American lands were sovereign and not technically part of the united states.
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 went against the Worcester v Georgia ruling in several ways:
1. Ignoring Sovereignty: In the Worcester v Georgia case, the Supreme Court had ruled that Native American tribes, such as the Cherokee, were separate nations with their own sovereignty. However, the Indian Removal Act disregarded this ruling and treated Native American lands as subject to the authority of the United States.
2. Nullifying Treaties: The Worcester v Georgia case had also recognized previous treaties made between Native American tribes and the federal government, which protected their rights to their ancestral lands. However, the Indian Removal Act effectively nullified these treaties by forcibly relocating Native American tribes from their lands to designated territories west of the Mississippi River.
3. Disregarding Judicial Authority: The Indian Removal Act defied the authority of the Supreme Court by pushing forward with policies that contradicted the Court's ruling. The act was passed under President Andrew Jackson's administration, and he famously responded to the Worcester decision by saying: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." This demonstrated a lack of respect for the power of the judiciary and the principle of checks and balances.
Overall, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was a direct contradiction to the Worcester v Georgia ruling as it ignored the sovereignty of Native American tribes, nullified existing treaties, and disregarded the authority of the Supreme Court.