John Marshall enforces the void of Worcester V. Georgia

Chief Justice John Marshall and his fellow Justices voided Worcester V. Georgia. Yet in response President Jackson said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" In other words he was staying that Marshall's opinion was jackshit unless he could enforce it. Marshall failed to enforce it and the Indian removals continued.

What if: John Marshall somehow attempted to enforce it?

Also, he doesn't have to succeed he just has to try
 
Chief Justice John Marshall and his fellow Justices voided Worcester V. Georgia. Yet in response President Jackson said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" In other words he was staying that Marshall's opinion was jackshit unless he could enforce it. Marshall failed to enforce it and the Indian removals continued.

What if: John Marshall somehow attempted to enforce it?

Also, he doesn't have to succeed he just has to try

The only possible tool of enforcement for Marshall might be to deputize a whole lot of U.S. Marshals. I'm not sure any Federal judge has the authority to do that.
 
How? He can't impeach the President, only Congress can do that. He can't order police to arrest Jackson, because police forces are under the control of the states. And he obviously can't tell the military what to do, since the President is the commander-in-chief.

I guess you could have him make a public appearance in DC. Maybe he walks right up to the White House and tells Jackson to stop, or publicly denounces the actions. But there's nothing he can actually do to stop it.
 
So basically anything he does would be weak, but what sort of effect on the US government do you think it would have? Would the Judicial Branch be downsized or lessened in power? Would Jackson try and remove Marshall from office?
 
The only possible tool of enforcement for Marshall might be to deputize a whole lot of U.S. Marshals. I'm not sure any Federal judge has the authority to do that.

I may really be playing up this idea (and FWIW I think it's highly unlikely, if not ASB), but what if he were to deputize a crapload of Marshals, then find Jackson and arrest him, leading to a possibly violent showdown between the Executive and Judiciary? I guess that's always been an idea I had, giving the Judiciary actual muscle to ENFORCE exactly this kind of problem.
 
I may really be playing up this idea (and FWIW I think it's highly unlikely, if not ASB), but what if he were to deputize a crapload of Marshals, then find Jackson and arrest him, leading to a possibly violent showdown between the Executive and Judiciary? I guess that's always been an idea I had, giving the Judiciary actual muscle to ENFORCE exactly this kind of problem.

I think Jackson would use the army or something to crush the marshals, but nonetheless it would cause interesting ripples with a Chief Justice attempting to dethrone the President
 
I think Jackson would use the army or something to crush the marshals, but nonetheless it would cause interesting ripples with a Chief Justice attempting to dethrone the President

Sounds about right to me, I can't see the Marshals standing up to the army (such as it was between 1812 and 1850) in a fair fight. About the only way I think this plan could work is if Marshall decides to launch a coup d'etat (again, REALLY ASB in my opinion) and group-assassinate Jackson, Caesar-style, instead of arrest him. That then opens up a whole 'nother cannery of worms, not least of which is the punishment of Marshall himself and likely reduction of the Judiciary. I guess I've always resented Jackson's dismissive reaction to the case's outcome, and wished for Marshall to have some way to put his money where his mouth is.
 
It's very doubtful that Jackson actually said that, because, as Robert Remini put it, "there was nothing in the Decision that he had to enforce. The decision ordered the highest court of Georgia to reverse its decision. And, not until that court refused and could be declared in contempt, was there anything that Jackson had to do. The Supreme Court simply adjourned for the year. The Georgia Court did nothing, so Jackson did not have to enforce any ruling." http://www.ushistory.org/us/historians/remini.asp

The remark does *sound* like Jackson, but as Remini has noted in his *Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Freedom*, why would Jackson "refuse an action that no one asked him to take"?
 
Top