用戶:JuneAugust/伍斯特訴佐治亞州案
| 伍斯特訴佐治亞州案 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | ||||||||
| 辯論：1832年2月20日 判決：1832年3月3日 | ||||||||
| 案件全名 | 塞繆爾·A·伍斯特 訴 佐治亞州 | |||||||
| 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) | |||||||
| 後續案件 | None | |||||||
| 法庭判決 | ||||||||
| Worcester's conviction is void, because states have no criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country. | ||||||||
| 最高法院法官 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| 法庭意見 | ||||||||
| 多數意見 | 馬歇爾 聯名：約翰遜、杜瓦爾、斯托里、湯普森 | |||||||
| 協同意見 | 麥克萊恩 | |||||||
| 不同意見 | 鮑德溫 | |||||||
| 適用法條 | ||||||||
| 美國憲法第一章 | ||||||||
伍斯特訴佐治亞州案, 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[編輯]
Facts[編輯]
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 傳教士 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.
判決[編輯]
首席法官約翰·馬歇爾在此判決中闡述了印第安部落與聯邦州政府之間的關係將取決於國家。 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，這些特權使其在處置北美地區印第安部落的時候具有獨佔權Those rights, he stated, are the sole right of dealing with the Indian nations in North America, 排除其他任何歐洲勢力，to the exclusion of any other European power, and not the rights of possession to their land or political dominion over their laws. 他承認征服和購買可以給予原住民以政治統治，但那些將由聯邦政府來負責而非各州。
法院裁定，切諾基部落是一個自治的「獨特的社群」，「佐治亞州法律無力干涉」。The court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was a "distinct community" with self-government "in which the laws of Georgia can have no force." 它確立了這樣的原則，即美國聯邦政府而不是個別州，具有在美國印第安人重大事件上的權威性。
Legacy[編輯]
Jackson's response[編輯]
In a popular quotation, President 安德魯·傑克遜 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 美國法警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[編輯]
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.
註釋[編輯]
- ^ 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.
參考[編輯]
- 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.
外部連結[編輯]
