References in periodicals archive ?
73) The sources examined in the Cherokee cases, the treaties of Holston and Hopewell, both invoked language of management of affairs as an obligation of the federal government.
In addition, Georgia had outlawed Cherokee schools and the Cherokee legislature in the Cherokee cases, (180) The point is that there is a history to these matters and the more courts try to make Indian cases fit conventional and mainstream preemption analysis, the more likely we are to deny that history and the long-standing constitutional doctrines that have adjusted it.
The Cherokee case was also the birth of the trust doctrine, which still exists today in Indian law.
The Cherokee cases clearly established that the tribes were separate political entities with authority over their internal affairs and beyond the reach of the authority of the individual states.
145) In contrast to the Cherokee Cases, the Court emphasized the tribes' "weakness and helplessness" and asserted that the "tribes are wards of the nation," completely dependent on the United States.
Nevertheless, recent congressional reliance on the trust obligation to justify certain statutes invites a judicial shift in the doctrine in order to reinstate the protection of Native American interests originally envisioned in the Cherokee Cases.
203) The Cherokee Cases reflect a general intent to preserve the Native American way of life,(204) and later decisions have applied the trust obligation to Native American religion.
238) Protection of Native American religious and cultural interests reflects the recent promotion of the trust obligation by Congress and the Executive and also marks a return to the "domestic dependent nation[]" status that Chief Justice Marshall envisioned under the Cherokee Cases.

Full browser ?