Johnson vs. M'Intosh

 

                 The Johnson vs. M'Intosh, about  two non Native American groups claimed title to land in Illinois. Johnson argueing that the land was legualy his becuase he had inherited a tract of land from his father, who bought the land from the Piankeshaw Indians. Making the arguement that Johnsons ansestors had boughten the land and the legually he was inherted it and that for that matter the land was rightfully his. That no random person can just come and take possesion of the land when clearly the land was rightfully owned by himself. Fact being that Johnson did not know that M'Intosh had a legual paper saying that the land was owned by William M'Intosh making him the rightful owner.

 

                  The argument that was present by M'Intosh that  private citizens could not purchase lands from Native American. Therefore the land title that was legaul and had every document present correctly was M'Intosh, so he believed. When in In fact, the two parcels did not overlap at all. Therefore, there was evidence that the parties were aware the tracts did not overlap and purposely misrepresented the facts to the court in order to obtain a ruling.

 

              This was a very important and eye opening case for the Marshall Court. Reason being that  Marshall's prosaic and eminently quotable opinion lays down the foundations of the doctrine of aboriginal title in the United States, and the related discovery doctrine. All that the opinion holds with respect to aboriginal title is that it is inalienable, a principle that remains well-established law in nearly all common law jurisdictions. Johnson has been a staple of federal and state cases related to Native American land title.

 



Cherokee Nation vs. State of Georgia 

             Before the State of Georgia said that they wanted to go to trial with the Cherokee Nation because Georgia felt that the Cherokee Nation should not be consider a nation. Georgia argued, in order to be  nation you first have to be independent something Georgia felt they the Cherokee's were not. During the time the Cherokee's were on Georgia's "Soil"something that the state was really up against because they said that the cherokees should most defiantly not be consider citizens. Their natives and thats how they should be looked like. None the little did Georgia know that the Cherokee were announced a nation by the United States. The United States had treaties among each other and that something Georgia had no jurisdiction. 

             When presenting the cast, the court automatically said their was no case that should be present because Georgia could not go against any treaties that are made under the laws of following the constitution. When going against the Law; Article 3 section 2: the laws of the United State and treaties made between citizens of the same state claiming land under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states citizens or subject. The argument used by the Cherokee's to defend their side of the argument that the State of Georgia could not go up against and interfere with the treaties that were made. 

             This case was important not just in Georgia but also in the United States because laws were being present and sometimes even passed when some of the laws that were being made were going against the United States Constitution. This case was not won nor lost because their was not case that they felt was power and that their was something that should be argued and that should have a defiant decision if the Cherokees should stay in Gerogia or not.