Worcester v. georgia showed the limitations of the constitution’s provisions for checks and balances because
a.
the president and congress refused to enforce the ruling, making it powerless
b.
the president declared the law invalid without giving congress a chance to override his veto
c.
the state government enforced the ruling against the wishes of the federal government
d.
the army took matters into their own hands, removing the cherokee against the wishes of georgia, the president, and congress

A. the president and Congress refused to enforce the ruling, making it powerless    

Explanation:

In the Worcester v. Georgia case (1832), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the states did not have the right to extend its jurisdiction over the Cherokees land, to impose regulations and to force them to leave their land because Indian Nations were "distinct, independent political communities retaining their original natural rights" within the American Nation.

However, this decision was never enforced because President Jackson and the U.S. Congress decided to ignore it. Instead, he sent federal troops to take over the Cherokee Nation's land and to force the removal of the Native Americans, and the Supreme Court did not do anything about it in order to avoid a political conflict between the Judicial and the Executive branch.

This case showed the limitations of the Constitution’s provisions for checks and balances (in which each branch can respond to the action of the other and limit the action of the others) because the president and Congress refused to enforce the Court's ruling, making it powerless.

#1 im pretty sure its a.

d. she conquered the black sea coast and parts of poland.