Jackson defied the constitution more then he abided by it because in the Constitution, it states that “no new state can be created within an actual state” but it also does not state that it is lawful to remove any population form their rightful homeland. He had no choice but to follow the Constitution on this case. The Constitution did not mention that it was unlawful for the expulsion of Native Americans from their homeland. He was extremely unjust in his decision because the United States created treaties with the Cherokees justifying their stay in their homeland but those treaties took place before the original Constitution was ratified. It was very unconstitutional of Jackson to ignore the decision made by John Marshall in Worcester vs. Maryland case, that the natives could stay in their homeland, because the judicial branch has the ultimate power to interpret the Constitution. Jackson’s decision also meant that he was abiding to the laws of the state rather then the federal laws, which doesn’t have a valid constitutional value. The difference between the federal and state government was becoming very obvious and Jackson seemed to be in the favor of the state government much more then the federal.
No comments:
Post a Comment