In worcester v. georgia, the supreme court ruled that native american tribes were sovereign states. how did this affect cherokee removal?
the federal government had to allow the cherokee to vote on removal.
the federal government removed the cherokee anyway.
the state of georgia allowed some cherokee to remain.
the state of georgia was required to pay the cherokee for their land.

The right answer is The federal government removed the Cherokee anyway. Now Georgia faced down the Supreme Court with the implicit consent of another president. Andrew Jackson did nothing to enforce the Court’s decision, claiming that he had no authority to intervene in Georgia. In fact, Jackson regarded any treaties with Indians as “an absurdity.” Under the circumstances, there was nothing for the Cherokees to do but give in and sign a treaty, which they did in 1835. They gave up their land in the Southeast (about 100 million acres) in exchange for tracts in the Indian Territory west of Arkansas, $5 million from the federal government, and expenses for transportation. By 1838, seventeen thousand Cherokees had departed westward on the “Trail of Tears,” following other tribes on an eight-hundred-mile journey marked by the cruelty and neglect of soldiers and private contractors and scorn and pilferage by whites along the way.

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is