Was Andrew Jackson's refusal to uphold the Supreme Court's decision relative to the Cherokee a legitimate use of checks and balances?

Answer 1

Andrew Jackson didn't refuse to uphold the US Supreme Court's decision. This is a common misunderstanding of Chief Justice John Marshall's written opinions in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia, (1832).

Hypothetically, if the Supreme Court had proper jurisdiction to order the federal government to protect the Cherokee and Jackson refused, his inaction would not be a "legitimate use of checks and balances." The Constitution doesn't authorize the President to ignore the Supreme Court's decisions; the Executive Branch (President) is charged with the responsibility of enforcing them. Jackson would have been guilty of circumventing the system of checks and balances.

Explanation

In both Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, (1831) and Worcester v. Georgia, (1832), the Court declared the United States relationship to the Cherokee was that of two separate nations, with the Cherokee's status a "denominated domestic dependent nation," giving the federal government the sole right of negotiation with them and creating a duty to protect the Cherokee from Georgia's hostile actions. The decision in Worcesterbarred Georgia from annexing the land, and ruled the state did not have the right of possession, nor dominion over Cherokee laws or territory, short of military conquest or legal purchase. The Supreme Court's opinion applied specifically to Georgia, not to the federal government.

Jackson ignored Marshall's assertion that the federal government was obligated to protect the Native Americans; there way no legal requirement for the federal government to adhere to Marshall's decision because 1) the statement wasn't part of the official ruling (Worcester v. Georgia, (1832)); 2) the removal issue wasn't a question before the Court; 3) the United States wasn't party to the case; and 4) the Court has no power to enforce its rulings, anyway. The Constitution assigns authority over law enforcement to the Executive branch of government, over which the President presided. Because Jackson, then Van Buren, and Congress were in agreement about (mis)appropriating Cherokee land and moving them to less hospitable territory west of the Mississippi River, the Supreme Court had no way of preventing their action.

Jackson pressured the Governor of Georgia to pardon and release from jail the missionaries who had lived on Native American land without buying a required state license. Georgia continued to enforce its unconstitutional laws, but did not claim the disputed territory.

Treaty of New Echotoa

President Jackson wasn't in office when the Cherokee were forced from their land following the 1836 Treaty of New Echotoa. President Jackson opposed the Court's developing support of Native American rights, but was never legally required to uphold the Court's decisions in the relevant cases.

Jackson's presidential successor, Martin Van Buren, and Congress circumvented the Supreme Court by ratifying the Treaty of New Echota in 1836, an instrument signed by the Ridge Party, an unauthorized faction within the Cherokee Nation. The Treaty offered the Nation 5 million dollars and land in Indian Territory (modern Oklahoma) in exchange for the more desirable Southern ancestral land. Although John Ross, elected leader of the Cherokee Nation, protested to Congress, his pleas were ignored. The illegal treaty lead directly to the tragic "Trail of Tears."

The Supreme Court never had an opportunity to rule on the validity of the Treaty because no case was presented for consideration.

For more information, see Related Questions, below.