In 1832, the united states supreme court ruled in worcester v. georgia that the state of georgia had no right to force the cherokee from their native lands. why did this ruling have little positive effect? georgia had no interest in cherokee lands. president jackson did not enforce the ruling. the cherokee nation chose to move to canada. the trail of tears had already occurred.

The ruling in Worcester v. Georgia had little positive effects because President Jackson didn't enforce it.

The ruling of the US Supreme Court in the case Worcester v. Georgia (1832) is one of the most important decisions in the history of US jurisprudence. The president of the Supreme Court at the time was John Marshall, former Secretary of State of US President John Adams.

The question concerned the Cherokee Indians, and their removal from the lands of the state of Georgia. The Indians lived peacefully in their lands thanks to ancient peace treaties carried out in 1791 with the United States. They had their own laws and a proper state. But in 1828 gold was discovered in their possessions and Georgia took advantage of the opportunity to declare all previous agreements null and void in order to recover valuable lands and assets contained in them. The Indians then recurred with the help of the missionary Samuel Austin Worcester.

The Supreme Court declared the unconstitutionality of the state law, as only the federal government could express itself on the question of the Cherokee.

President Andrew Jackson, supporting the state of Georgia, allowed that the Indians were driven from the territory under the threat of weapons, in what was called the Trail of Tears.

why is a nation of the tood recurre.

if you need any just message me on here i geuss and i'll you out with it

explanation: