Cheorkee Indians :: essays research papers

MARSHALL, C. J. This bill is brought by the Cherokee nation, praying an injunction to restrain the state of Georgia from the execution of certain laws of that state, which, as is alleged, go directly to annihilate the Cherokee as a political society, and to seize for the use of Georgia, the lands of the nation which have been assured to them by the United States, in solemn treaties repeatedly made and still in force. If courts were permitted to indulge their sympathies, a case better calculated to excite them can scarcely be imagined. A people, once numerous, powerful, and truly independent, found by our ancestors in the quiet and uncontrolled possession of an ample domain, gradually sinking beneath our superior policy, our arts and our arms, have yielded their lands, by successive treaties, each of which contains a solemn guarantee of the residue, until they retain no more of their formerly extensive territory than is deemed necessary to their comfortable subsistence. To preserve this remnant, the present application is made. Before we can look into the merits of the case, a preliminary inquiry presents itself. Has this court jurisdiction of the cause? The third article of the constitution describes the extent of the judicial power. The second section closes an enumeration of the cases to which it is extended, with "controversies between a state or citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects." A subsequent clause of the same section gives the supreme court original jurisdiction, in all cases in which a state shall be a party. The party defendant may then unquestionably be sued in this court. May the plaintiff sue in it? Is the Cherokee nation a foreign state, in the sense in which that term is used in the constitution? The counsel for the plaintiffs have maintained the affirmative of this proposition with great earnestness and ability. So much of the argument as was intended to prove the character of the Cherokees as a state, as a distinct political society, separated from others, capable of managing its own affairs and governing itself, has in the opinion of a majority of the judges, been completely successful. They have been uniformly treated as a state, from the settlement of our country. The numerous treaties made with them by the United States, recognise them as a people capable of maintaining the relations of peace and war, of being responsible in their political character for any violation of their engagements, or for any aggression committed on the citizens of the United States, by any individual of their community.

Bilingual Education and the Cycle of Native Language

The original objective of bilingual education was to ensure students would not fall behind academically because of a poor command of English and to gradually teach them English as a second language. If language-minority students were taught some subjects in their native tongue, proponents insisted, they potentially could learn English without sacrificing content knowledge. But bilingual education†s critics argue that the approach keeps students in a cycle of native language dependency that ultimately inhibits significant progress in English language acquisition. Proponents counter that if students first learn to read in the language they are fluent in and then transfer the skills over to English-their second language-they will develop stronger literacy skills in the long term. Plus, they argue that in an increasingly global society, schools, far from discouraging native-language retention, should work to help students maintain their native tongues, even as they also teach them English. Complicating the debate is the range of programs that, by some people†s definition, fall under the umbrella of bilingual education. Some use bilingual education to refer only to transitional bilingual education or two-way bilingual programs while others consider any program designed for students with limited proficiency in English to be â€Å"bilingual.† For instance, they may refer to English-as-a-second-language programs, where students are typically taught solely in English, as bilingual education. Public sentiment against transitional bilingual education has been growing. On June 2, 1998, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 227, an initiative that largely eliminated bilingual education from the state†s public schools. Under the California initiative, most LEP students in that state are now placed in English-immersion programs. Arizona voters followed suit by passing Proposition 203, a measure similar to the California initiative, on Nov. 7, 2000. While the California initiative reduced the percentage of LEP children in bilingual education from 29 percent to 12 percent, the Arizona initiative is expected to end bilingual education because, unlike the California initiative, it makes it very difficult for parents to seek waivers from English immersion that would permit some bilingual education to continue. Arizona officials expect to implement the law by fall 2001. Despite the â€Å"English only† message that Propositions 227 and 203 bear, the debate over how best to instruct linguistically diverse students is far from decided nationwide.

Green Fire Projects