on Indian removal. When Jackson found out that Wirt was their lawyer, he denounced him as "wicked"(Coit 44). The court responded to the case by upholding the rights of the Indians against the state, and that they were dependent upon the federal government. Still Georgia disregarded the Supreme Court, and went ahead and executed Corn Tassel. There was another case, Worcester v. Georgia, originating in Georgia in 1829. It grew out of Georgia law forbidding whites to reside among Indians without licenses. Several missionaries, one of whom was named Worcester, appealed to the Supreme Court after their arrest for violating the law. Chief Justice John Marshall again decided against Georgia by stating that the Cherokees constituted a definite political community over which the laws of Georgia had no legal force. But again Georgia denied the authority of the Court and its sentence. Jackson refused to enforce the decision. He did so because he knew that the people in the South and the West would not tolerate its enforcement. His reaction to these decisions showed that he was for states' rights as much as he was for nationalism. Jackson's refusal to enforce these decisions in favor of the states was seen by states' rights people as a sign of toleration of nullification. It gave them the idea that he was in favor of states nullifying laws only if he also shared in their dislike for the intolerable laws. Now he was using the Constitution to prove his point in an almost opposite manner than the way he used it in the nullification crisis. He used the fact that the Constitution wasn't specific on that issue to manipulate it the way he desired. As long as he made the people happy, he didn't create much opposition. It was the same way with the next issue, the constitutionality of the Second Bank of the United States.President Jackson made it his mission to destroy the Second Bank of the United States. The Second Bank of the United State...
