<p>what was the london economic conference?</p>
<p>I am blanking out what case set the precedent for “clear and present danger” rant. Can someone fill me in?</p>
<p>Copying from PR:
“The Supreme Court had protected Native American rights to their land in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and Worcester v. Georgia”</p>
<p>I remember answering a mc question that said that these cases recognized that the land was rightfully theirs but I believe these cases did not promote integration of Indians into “american society” or relieve any tension between the rivalling parties.</p>
<p>I think that’s the international conference during the 40’s. US I think didn’t go or did go but refused all the stuff. US was isolationist wanting to get over the depression. It didn’t really care about the world economy.
anyways what’s the difference between worchester v. GA and Cherokee v. GA?
I think that’s schenck v. US
It stated that you can’t shout fire in a theater when there’s no fire.</p>
<p>Okay, to go over my own question, since I just became really confused over the answer…</p>
<p>Cherokee Nation v. Georgia was in 1831. The Supreme Court ruled that Cherokees were not a foreign nation with the right to sue in a federal court. </p>
<p>But the next year, 1832, there was a second case, Worcester v. Georgia. Here, the court ruled that the laws of Georgia had no force within the boundaries of the Cherokee territory. This essentially meant that the Cherokee sort of were a nation, and it gave them more rights than the case before.</p>
<p>This entire thing became some huge scandal because of Jackson’s Indian Removal Act of 1830, which forced indians to move West. The Cherokees didn’t want to, so they sued.</p>
<p>However, even though Worcester v. Georgia allowed them to stay, Jackson was all, states rights!, except he really just hated Indians, and he ignored the ruling. Except it wasn’t until after Jackson left office that the army forced the Cherokees to leave Georgia in the Trail of Tears.</p>
<p>worcester v georgia recognized tribal autonomy and was good towards indians, and cherokee v georgia kind of reversed that I think, saying that the indians were dependant on the gov and therefore answered to them. Something like that i believe, but correct me if i’m wrong.</p>
<p>never mind, Ambrosia’s is much better. :)</p>
<p>I am blanking out what case set the precedent for “clear and present danger” rant. Can someone fill me in?</p>
<p>that’s Schenk v. U.S., I believe, with the whole Japanese internment camp issue.</p>
<p>What about internment camps?</p>
<p>Korematsu v U.S. said camps were constitutional, ex parte endo said that those born on U.S. soil could not be detained.</p>
<p>“never mind, Ambrosia’s is much better.”</p>
<p>That’s cause I cheated with AMSCO ;)</p>
<p>well i have a APUSH final tomorrow. I’m going to bed bye folks, and have a good night. :)</p>
<p>haha West Side story…you guys crack me up</p>
<p>What are “Spot Resolutions”?</p>
<p>I have never heard of spot resolutions before, but since it is between Mexican-American War and the treaty of guadalupe hidalgo, I would guess it was the resolutions slidell made with the makeshift governments while Mexico was going through political anarchy.</p>
<p>Spot Resolutions</p>
<p>Proposed by a young and relatively unknown Abraham Lincoln. He wanted to determine exactly which spot (hence the name) the fighting during the Mexican-American War began, to determine who was the aggressor. </p>
<p>The other congressmen just kind of made fun of him. But we all know who got the last laugh.</p>
<p>John Wilkes Booth?</p>
<p>Precisely. Lincoln told Polk at the Advent of the Mexican War (1846) to select a spot (passed or behind the rio grande), so that mexican encroachments could be validated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, George W. Bush. He was elected President despite losing the election, both in popular votes and in electoral votes.</p>
<p>=P</p>
<p>it was a conference to standardize currency throughout the Western world … after WWI, I believe, the president was all for it, but isolationism and the senate forced him to withdraw</p>
<p>George W. Bush = Harbinger of the Second Great Depression.</p>
<p>Let’s remember to include the question (and bold it, or use the quote system) with our answers, so everyone knows what we’re talking about…</p>
<p>Why was Andrew Johnson impeached?</p>
<p>just to clarify, Schenk v. U.S was about the espionage and sedition acts passed during WWI…but yeah it did contain the “clear and present danger” clause</p>
<p>I think it was FDR in the 30s</p>