User:JuneAugust/伍斯特诉佐治亚州案
| 伍斯特诉佐治亚州案 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | ||||||||
| 辩论：1832年2月20日 判决：1832年3月3日 | ||||||||
| 案件全名 | 塞缪尔·A·伍斯特 诉 佐治亚州 | |||||||
| 引註案號 | 31 U.S. 515 8 L. Ed. 483 | |||||||
| 既往案件 | Plaintiff convicted in Gwinnett County, Georgia by the Georgia Superior Court (Sept. 15, 1831) | |||||||
| 后续案件 | None | |||||||
| 法庭判决 | ||||||||
| Worcester's conviction is void, because states have no criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country. | ||||||||
| 最高法院法官 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| 法庭意见 | ||||||||
| 多数意见 | 马歇尔 联名：约翰逊、杜瓦尔、斯托里、汤普森 | |||||||
| 协同意见 | 麦克莱恩 | |||||||
| 不同意见 | 鲍德温 | |||||||
| 适用法条 | ||||||||
| 美国宪法第一章 | ||||||||
伍斯特诉佐治亚州案, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court vacated the conviction of Samuel Worcester and held that the Georgia criminal statute that prohibited non-Indians from being present on Indian lands without a license from the state was unconstitutional.
The opinion is most famous for its dicta, which lay out the relationship between tribes and the state and federal governments, building the foundations of the doctrine of tribal sovereignty in the United States.
背景[编辑]
Facts[编辑]
Georgia passed laws restricting authority of the Cherokee over their lands. Among these was a law requiring all whites living in Cherokee Indian Territory, including missionaries and persons married to Cherokee, to obtain a state license to live there. After seven 传教士 refused to obtain licenses, they were arrested, convicted, and sentenced to four years of hard labor. They refused to obey the military when they were asked to leave the state. They appealed their case to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the law under which they had been convicted was unconstitutional because states have no authority to pass laws concerning sovereign Indian Nations.
The missionaries Samuel Worcester and Elizur Butler were arrested by Georgia because of their opposition to Cherokee removal. Even if they had applied for state licenses, they still would have been denied. The Georgia state courts had previously deferred to Worcester because of his federal appointment as postmaster to New Echota, the Cherokee capital. However, George Rockingham Gilmer, the governor of Georgia, persuaded the federal government to withdraw Worcester's appointment as postmaster in order to make him subject to arrest.
判决[编辑]
首席法官约翰·马歇尔在此判决中阐述了印第安部落与联邦州政府之间的关系将取决于国家。 He argued that the United States, in the character of the federal government, inherited the rights of Great Britain as they were held by that nation. 他指出，这些特权使其在处置北美地区印第安部落的时候具有独占权Those rights, he stated, are the sole right of dealing with the Indian nations in North America, 排除其他任何欧洲势力，to the exclusion of any other European power, and not the rights of possession to their land or political dominion over their laws. 他承认征服和购买可以给予原住民以政治统治，但那些将由联邦政府来负责而非各州。
法院裁定，切诺基部落是一个自治的“独特的社群”，“佐治亚州法律无力干涉”。The court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was a "distinct community" with self-government "in which the laws of Georgia can have no force." 它确立了这样的原则，即美国联邦政府而不是个别州，具有在美国印第安人重大事件上的权威性。
Legacy[编辑]
Jackson's response[编辑]
In a popular quotation, President 安德鲁·杰克逊 is supposed to have said: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!". This derives from Jackson's consideration on the case in a letter to John Coffee, "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate," (that is, the Court's opinion was moot because it had no power to enforce its edict).[1]
The ruling in Worcester ordered that Worcester be freed; Georgia complied after several months. In 1833, the newly elected governor, Wilson Lumpkin, offered to pardon Worcester and Butler if they ceased their activities among the Cherokee. The two complied and were freed (under the authority of a January 14, 1833 general proclamation, not a formal pardon);[2] they never returned to Cherokee lands.
The federal government and the Cherokee were not party to the suit. Worcester imposed no obligations on Jackson; there was nothing for him to enforce.[3][4] The Court did not ask 美国法警s to carry out the decision, as had become standard.[5] Worcester may be seen as a prudential decision, for avoiding the possibility of political conflict between the Court and the Executive, while still delivering what appeared to be a pro-Indian decision.[6]
As a tribal sovereignty precedent[编辑]
Marshall's language in Worcester may have been motivated by his regret that his earlier opinions in Fletcher and Johnson had been used as a justification for Georgia's actions. Justice Story considered it similarly, writing in a letter to his wife dated March 4, 1832: "Thanks be to God, the Court can wash their hands clean of the iniquity of oppressing the Indians and disregarding their rights."[7] Because Jackson proceeded with Cherokee removal, Worcester did little more for indigenous rights than Johnson v. M'Intosh or Cherokee Nation v. Georgia.[8][9]
In 1835, a dissident faction of Cherokee signed a removal treaty, the Treaty of New Echota. Jackson lobbied the U.S. Senate to ratify the treaty in 1836, where it passed by a majority of one vote. In 1838, under President Martin Van Buren, the U.S. Army forcibly relocated the Cherokee to Indian Territory (part of present-day Oklahoma), in what would become known as the Trail of Tears.
Worcester is cited in several later opinions on the subject of tribal sovereignty in the United States.
注释[编辑]
- ^ Boller, Paul F.; John H. George. They Never Said It: A Book of False Quotes, Misquotes, & False Attributions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 1989: 53. ISBN 978-0-19-506469-8.
- ^ Chused, 1999.
- ^ Banner, 2005, pp. 218—24.
- ^ Norgren, 2004, pp. 122—30.
- ^ Berutti, 1992, pp. 305—06.
- ^ Lytle, 1980, p. 69.
- ^ Warren, 1926, l.757.
- ^ Robertson, 2005, p. 117—44.
- ^ Banner, 2005, pp. 220–27.
参考[编辑]
- Stuart Banner, How the Indians Lost Their Land: Law and Power on the Frontier (2005).
- Berutti, Ronald A. The Cherokee Cases: The Fight to Save the Supreme Court and the Cherokee Indians. American Indian Law Review. 1992, 17 (1): 291–308. doi:10.2307/20068726.
- Burke, Joseph C. The Cherokee Cases: A Study in Law, Politics, and Morality. Stanford Law Review (Stanford Law Review, Vol. 21, No. 3). 1969, 21 (3): 500–531. JSTOR 1227621. doi:10.2307/1227621.
- Chused, Richard. Cases, Materials, and Problems in Property 2nd. New York: M. Bender. 1999. ISBN 0-8205-4135-4.
- Lytle, Cliford M. The Supreme Court, Tribal Sovereignty, and Continuing Problems of State Encroachment into Indian Country. American Indian Law Review. 1980, 8 (1): 65–77. doi:10.2307/20068139.
- Jill Norgren, The Cherokee Cases: Two Landmark Federal Decisions in the Fight for Sovereignty (2004).
- Prucha, Francis Paul. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians I. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 1984. ISBN 0-8032-3668-9.
- Lindsay G. Robertson, Conquest by Law: How the Discovery of America Dispossessed Indigenous Peoples of Their Lands (2005).
- Smith, Jean Edward. John Marshall: Definer Of A Nation. New York: Henry Holt & Company. 1996. ISBN 0-8050-1389-X.
- Charles Warren. The Supreme Court in United States History, (2d. ed., 1926). 2 vols.
外部链接[编辑]
