enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Indian termination policy - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_termination_policy

    Indian termination describes United States policies relating to Native Americans from the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s. [1] ... Worcester v. Georgia (1832), ...

  3. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_Nation_v._Georgia

    Congress’s passage of the Indian Removal Act further emboldened Georgia and the Jackson administration, setting the stage for legal and physical confrontations. Ross and the Cherokee turned to the courts as a last resort, laying the groundwork for significant legal battles, including Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) and the later Worcester v.

  4. Indian country jurisdiction - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_country_jurisdiction

    Indian Country, as defined by Congress in 1948 (18 U.S.C.A. 1151) is: a) "all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and including rights-of way running through the reservation, b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of ...

  5. Worcester v. Georgia - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia

    Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court vacated the conviction of Samuel Worcester and held that the Georgia criminal statute that prohibited non-Native Americans from being present on Native American lands without a license from the state was unconstitutional.

  6. Indian Removal Act - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act

    The Indian Removal Act was supported by President Jackson and the Democratic Party, [7] southern and white settlers, and several state governments, especially that of Georgia. Indigenous tribes and the Whig Party opposed the bill, as did other groups within white American society (e.g., some Christian missionaries and clergy). Legal efforts to ...

  7. Indian removal - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_removal

    Georgia (1831), but declined to rule on its merits; the court declaring that the Native American tribes were not sovereign nations, and could not "maintain an action" in US courts. [78] [79] In an opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), individual states had no authority in American Indian affairs. [80] [81]

  8. Georgia's top court will not fast-track appeal of US ballot ...

    www.aol.com/news/georgias-top-court-wont-fast...

    By Jack Queen (Reuters) -Georgia's top court declined on Tuesday to hear an expedited appeal by Republicans of a decision blocking a new rule that would have required poll workers to hand-count ...

  9. Federal Indian Policy - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Indian_Policy

    The act also allowed the Alaskan tribe to have freedom from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In the 1960s, there were many acts passed, geared to helping the Indian tribes. Indian tribes benefited greatly from these because it gave them rights within both the tribal and federal government. In 1968, the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 was passed ...