Teach
02-06-2017, 12:27 PM
“John Marshall made his decision, now let him enforce it!” former President Andrew Jackson was purported to have said.
That alleged comment came shortly after SCOTUS had ruled in the case of Worcester v. Georgia (1831) that the states - in this case the state of Georgia - had no authority in American Indian affairs. Furthermore, that Supreme Court ruling in the Worcester case affirmed the authority of the federal government over Indian Affairs. Thus, the state of Georgia’s statute that gives them control over Indian matters – in this case the Cherokee nation – was invalid, null and void. Simply stated, it was a case of nationalism prevailing over states rights.
As for enforcement, Chief Justice Marshall did not ask that federal marshalls - as was usually the case – be brought in to see that the decision was enforced. Thus, prudentially, Marshall avoided a potential political confrontation between the Judicial and the Executive branches, while still delivering what appeared to be a pro-Indian decision.
Well, as we fast-forward to the present, we’ve recently seen President Trump, through an EO, ban entry – with some exceptions - into this country for 90 days from seven predominately Muslim countries.
As I’m sure we’re all aware, the ban was stayed per a ruling by a judge from the state of Washington. As of yesterday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to immediately reinstate the ban. Will the Supreme Court become the ultimate arbiter? Whereas there are currently only eight members on the Supreme Court, a tie decision would revert back to the lower courts (Court of Appeals) decision.
I ask, “Is a major confrontation between the Judicial and Executive branches inevitable”?
Over one-hundred and eighty-five years later: “What Goes Around…Comes Around.”
That alleged comment came shortly after SCOTUS had ruled in the case of Worcester v. Georgia (1831) that the states - in this case the state of Georgia - had no authority in American Indian affairs. Furthermore, that Supreme Court ruling in the Worcester case affirmed the authority of the federal government over Indian Affairs. Thus, the state of Georgia’s statute that gives them control over Indian matters – in this case the Cherokee nation – was invalid, null and void. Simply stated, it was a case of nationalism prevailing over states rights.
As for enforcement, Chief Justice Marshall did not ask that federal marshalls - as was usually the case – be brought in to see that the decision was enforced. Thus, prudentially, Marshall avoided a potential political confrontation between the Judicial and the Executive branches, while still delivering what appeared to be a pro-Indian decision.
Well, as we fast-forward to the present, we’ve recently seen President Trump, through an EO, ban entry – with some exceptions - into this country for 90 days from seven predominately Muslim countries.
As I’m sure we’re all aware, the ban was stayed per a ruling by a judge from the state of Washington. As of yesterday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to immediately reinstate the ban. Will the Supreme Court become the ultimate arbiter? Whereas there are currently only eight members on the Supreme Court, a tie decision would revert back to the lower courts (Court of Appeals) decision.
I ask, “Is a major confrontation between the Judicial and Executive branches inevitable”?
Over one-hundred and eighty-five years later: “What Goes Around…Comes Around.”