Question

In worcester v. georgia, supreme court justice john marshall declared: "the act of georgia under which the plaintiff [worchester] was prosecuted is void. the acts of georgia are [against] the constitution, laws, and treaties of the united states." this ruling supports the idea of:

Answer 1

The ruling in Worcester v. Georgia emphasized tribal sovereignty and the precedence of national authority over state laws in Indian affairs, supporting the protected status of the Cherokee Nation's autonomous territory under the U.S. Constitution.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the landmark case, Worcester v. Georgia, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall declared that the laws of Georgia were void when they conflicted with the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties of the United States. The ruling supported the principle of tribal sovereignty, emphasizing that only the national government, not individual states, had authority in Indian affairs. This case established that the Cherokee Nation was a distinct political community, with sovereign rights to its own territory, highlighting the protection afforded to the tribes through treaties and Congress's trade and intercourse acts.