Question

chief justice of the supreme court john marshall ruling
in 1832. chief justice of the supreme court john marshall ruled in favor of samuel worcester in worcester v. georgia. in doing so, he established the principle of tribal sovereignty. although this judgment contradicted cherokee nation v. georgia, it failed to halt the indian removal act. in his opinion. marshall wrote the following:
from the commencement of our government congress has passed acts to regulate trade and intercourse with the indians; which treat them as nations, respect their rights, and manifest a firm purpose to afford that protection which treaties stipulate. all these acts, and especially that of 1802. which is still in force, manifestly consider the several indian nations as distinct political communities, having territorial boundaries, within which their authority is exclusive, and having a right to all the lands within those boundaries, which is not only acknowledged, but guaranteed by the united states....
the cherokee nation, then, is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of georgia have no right to enter but with the assent of the cherokees themselves or in conformity with treaties and with the acts of congress. the whole intercourse between the united states and this nation is, by our constitution and laws, vested in the government of the united states.
the act of the state of georgia under which the plaintiff in error was prosecuted is consequently void, and the judgment a nullity.... the acts of georgia are repugnant to the constitution, laws, and treaties of the united states.
15 multiple choice 1 point
synthesize the outcomes of cherokee nation v. georgia (1831) and worcester v. georgia (1832). what does this comparison reveal about the challenges of enforcing legal protections for marginalized groups in a democratic system dominated by majority opinion?
court rulings are symbolic and have no impact on political decisions.
even when courts affirm rights, enforcement depends on executive and legislative compliance, revealing that majority-supported policies can override legal protections.
judicial victories always guarantee policy outcomes, so cherokee sovereignty was fully protected.
the decisions showed that state laws take precedence over constitutional principles when the majority desires it.
clear my selection

Explanation:

• Option 1: Court rulings are not just symbolic. In Worcester v. Georgia, the ruling had a legal basis. But the Indian Removal Act still went on. So this option is wrong.
• Option 2: In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Court said Cherokee was a "domestic dependent nation" (not fully sovereign in a way that could sue in federal court as a foreign nation). In Worcester v. Georgia, the Court affirmed tribal sovereignty. But the Indian Removal Act (a legislative - executive action) still happened. This shows that even when courts affirm rights (like tribal sovereignty in Worcester), enforcement depends on executive and legislative compliance. Majority - supported policies (like Indian Removal) can override legal protections (from the Court in Worcester).
• Option 3: The Cherokee sovereignty was not fully protected as the Indian Removal Act occurred despite the Worcester ruling. So this option is wrong.
• Option 4: State laws do not take precedence over constitutional principles. The Worcester ruling was based on the Constitution, treaties, etc. The issue was lack of enforcement, not state law precedence over constitutional principles.

Answer:

Even when courts affirm rights, enforcement depends on executive and legislative compliance, revealing that majority - supported policies can override legal protections.