Johnson V. Mcintosh Case Summary

The court cases Goldberg and Wheeler do not stand for the proposition that only welfare benefits for people in extreme circumstances are entitled to pre-termination hearings. However, this is one situation where cutting off benefits with little or no notice could affect the well-being of the family or person. Any programs that offer they type of assistance people rely on to survive could benefit from pre-termination hearings, not just the welfare program. Welfare is one of the main public assistance programs, although I think housing assistance and food stamps might fall into the welfare category, they are also in need of a pre-termination hearing. In the Goldberg and Wheeler cases, California and New York did not want to give anyone a hearing

Resnik, J. (2004). Tribes, Wars, and the Federal Courts: Applying the Myths and the Methods of Marbury v. Madison to Tribal Courts’ Criminal Jurisdiction. Ariz. St. LJ, 36,

In 1742 the chief of Onondaga of the Iroquois Confederacy knew that his land that the people shared would become more valuable than it has ever been. (Doc B)The reason for this was because the “white people” also known as the Americans wanted the land of the chief. The feelings of the Chief result in complaining to the representatives of Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia,

Native groups often took land and materials from weaker groups whenever it suited them. They understood the concept of ownership by conquest. From the time the first settlers landed on Turtle Island [America], the Natives were pushed from their home. In 1783, George Washington wrote a letter to James Duane, outlining principles of the Indian Policy of the Continental Congress. Washington outlined ‘an enlightened People’ would consider the Native to be deluded and that “as the country is large enough to contain us all; and as we are disposed to be kind to them and to partake in their trade…we will draw a veil over what is past and establish a boundary line between them and us beyond which we will endeavor to restrain our People from Hunting or Settling” (4).

The Act led to an array of legal and moral arguments for and against the need to relocate the Indians westward from the agriculturally productive lands of the Mississippi in Georgia and parts of Alabama. This paper compares and contrasts the major arguments for and against the

With the end of John Quincy Adams’ presidency came the end of the Virginia Dynasty of Presidents (meaning that all the previous presidents were originally from the state of Virginia). When the presidential election of 1830 had come around it seemed that another president would come about, but a man of the common man had come who would expand the United States and its borders beyond what they already were. This man was Mr. Andrew Jackson, the hero of the battle at New Orleans during the War of 1812. When Jackson had assumed the presidency he was faced with a momentous challenge. That being the United States was in current need of more land...

The Indian Claims Commission found that the Nation was not barred from submitting claim under res judicata and were entitle to de novo trial. The Indian Claims Commission decided that the Sioux Nation were entitle to 17 million dollars of just

In the article “The Hunger for Indian Land in Andrew Jackson’s America” written by Anthony F. C. Wallace, the treatment of Indian tribes and land in the Jacksonian Era is discussed. This purpose of the article is to explain the reason for Indian removal that occurred under Andrew Jackson’s presidency. The thesis of this article is that Americans kicked the natives off of their land to expand America's cotton industry. In Wallace’s first point he explains Andrew Jackson's reasons for removing the Indians from their lands were for his personal interest rather than for the good of the people.

From John Marshall to Thurgood Marshall: A Tale of Innovation and Evolution in Federal Indian Law Jurisdiction. Print. Using Academic Search Complete. Barnes discusses some of the greatest accomplishments related to minorities civil rights.

In Chapter 4 of Uneven Ground, Wilkins discusses the United States v. Winans case which regarded tribal rights. It held that the Yakamas tribe had “reserved rights” to hunt and fish because the Winans brothers had been depleting the salmon in the river. Wilkins also writes how the tribes implemented their rights based on their original and indigenous sovereignty. Chief Justice Fuller recognized this and confirmed the tribe’s rights to hunt and fish because of tribal sovereignty (125). In a similar case, Winters v. United States (1908), a man had built a dam that restricted all water flow down the Milk River.

The removal of the Cherokee, or more commonly known as the “Trail of Tears,” was a defining American event that left an incredible historical impact. The Cherokee and other Native American tribes were being moved westward by the American government for various reasons such as disputes with white settlers, the desire for the gold on the Cherokee lands, the desire to civilize them and other reasons. However, it was far from a simplistic dispute between whites and Native Americans. There were many whites, including President Jackson, as well as some Cherokee, who supported the policy to move the Indians west. Opponents of the removal also included both whites and Cherokee.

Whether Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Policies were ethical has come of debate from the time they were enacted and before. The time that Jackson was president has been fittingly named the Jacksonian Era. One of the iconic images of this era is a political cartoon that depicts President Jackson as “King Jackson the First” as he steps on the constitution and the Albany Plan of Union. I think that Jackson’s actions were not ethical.

Congress passed the treaty in order to relocate the Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi River to lands in the west. Although, the act did not order the removal of the Indians, it did allow the president to negotiate land by exchanging treaties with tribes living within the boundaries of the states ” (2008-2015). This shows that the government did not have the right to do what they

During the “Gilded Age” period of American history, development of the Trans-Mississippi west was crucial to fulfilling the American dream of manifest destiny and creating an identity which was distinctly American. Since the west is often associated with rugged pioneers and frontiersmen, there is an overarching idea of hardy American individualism. However, although these settlers were brave and helped to make America into what it is today, they heavily relied on federal support. It would not have been possible for white Americans to settle the Trans-Mississippi west without the US government removing Native Americans from their lands and placing them on reservations, offering land grants and incentives for people to move out west, and the

In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution. To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory.