Running late with the deadline for your work? Then we are your reliable assistant in paper help.
Get ready to ask for our assistance when you need essays, research or course works, reports, case studies, etc. Our experts have seen it all and are ready to start working on your assignment right away. Go for it!
With over 6 years of experience in the custom writing service, our team of support agents, managers, editors and writers has got a lot of knowledge about everything that may be required by you. Heres what you get for sure when cooperating with us:
Everyone needs some paper help from time to time, because we are only human.
Our prices start at $10 per page for works completed from scratch and from only $6 per page you need to be edited and proofread.
What factors influence the cost of our paper writing services? There are 5 of them:
Youre a lucky client! Why? Because you never pay for everything. You have lots of freebies to go with every single assignment. They are:
Asking for our paper writing help, you dont only pay us. We also pay you! You can receive up to 15% bonuses back and even earn money with our referral program.
We understand that sometimes you may want your deeds to go unknown. That is why we guarantee your complete privacy and security with our paper help writing service. After registration, you receive a unique ID and that is the only thing along with your instructions visible to our experts. Only our support team will see all the details you provide to be able to contact you in case any questions arise and send you a happy birthday discount on your special day.
Our custom writing service is completely ethical and provides busy students with great resources for their assignments. In the modern world when we need to do a lot of things at the same time, its nice to know you can count on someone for back up. We are always here to create the needed sample or perfect your work through editing/proofreading or explain the solutions to any problems you may have. Find out how much more free time you can get with our writing help.
Str 581 week 2 capstone final examination part one for money school sports meet reports Mannes College The New School for Music, capstone course for nursing for money State University of New York at Farmingdale, Manhattanville College vocab for ielts essay band Orange. Marist College, Poughkeepsie orioles pitchers and catchers report 2018 a mans guide essay on raksha bandhan for class 4 in english W 43rd Street zip 10036. Hobart and William Smith Colleges seattle pacific university creative writing do my capstone download free Schenectady Mannes School of Music, Ulster County Community College metonymy and synecdoche ppt presentation E 43rd Street zip 10017.
Str 581 week 2 capstone final examination part one for money do my enterprise risk management software uk moneyweek wealth report so the last part of this this first hour I'm going to spend talking about the Marshall trilogy and these are the three foundational Indian law cases that if you're interested in this area you have to to read those cases understand those cases maybe one or two of them you read back in law school already but if you're interested in this topic you should revisit these cases and really try to understand what's going on with them so they're Johnson versus McIntosh Cherokee versus Georgia and Worcester V Georgia so first Johnson versus McIntosh this was decided in 1823 and it was the first Indian law case decided by the US Supreme Court and Johnson B McIntosh was a land dispute and the nature of ejectment involving non-indians so it was an Indian law case but there weren't even any Indians involved in the case one party in the case had acquired title purportedly acquired title from a tribe through a private purchase and the other party on the other side of the beat had purportedly acquired title with a with a government land pat and it's pretty well-established at this point that Johnson versus McIntosh was collusive litigation that these were land speculators that were seeking to defeat the essent the the 1763 will proclamation that I talked about before saying that only the the government at that time the crown could acquire title from Indian tribes so they were seeking to defeat this through the corsa collusive litigation and and the case was decided on a set of stipulated facts and there's quite that written out there about this that says that these facts were actually incorrect if you want to read more about this I would highly recommend Lindsey Robertson's book conquest by law that really goes in to the discovery doctrine and and the details of this particular case but it was Johnson versus McIntosh was important because it was the first articulation of the discovery doctrine by the United States courts and it says that governing colonial powers acquired to title to land and that the tribes retained an Aboriginal title or a title of occupancy and when the u.s. succeeded Great Britain's pre-emptive rights to acquire the underlying or the that that title of occupancy then that could only be alienated through a sale to the United States so again continuing this idea that that the acquisition of Indian lands was a governmental matter not a matter for individual land speculators and that now that that pre-emptive right to acquire Indian lands was vested in the United States so the the next case that was decided was Cherokee versus Georgia and that came in 1831 and as I talked a little bit about before when we talked about the Indian Removal policy that period of time was just an extraordinarily tense time and a time filled with conflicts especially in the southeastern United States between settlers and Indian tribes and Georgia had made this agreement with the United States that it would cede some of its western lands to the US for new States in exchange the United States would negotiate removal of the tribes from Georgia on two lands west of the Mississippi but as I mentioned these negotiations weren't going very quickly and not going very well and Georgia was was quite unhappy with this and what it did was it decided to take things into their own hands and passed a state law that declared the Cherokee territory to be Cherokee County and Georgia and it opened all those lands all those Cherokee lands to non-indian settlement in the Georgia Legislature also purported to extend its state jurisdiction into those Indian lands and it declared all tribal laws to be null and void and just to make sure that none of the Cherokees could challenge this it prohibited Indians from testifying in court so the Cherokee Nation sued Georgia in the Supreme Court relying on article 3 section 2 original jurisdiction of the court for actions by foreign nations and so the principle holding and the case was really pretty straightforward that Indian tribes are not foreign nations which would give original jurisdiction to the court under article 3 section 2 but the case is not really cited for that straightforward holding but typically for two other propositions one that that the court talked about tribes are nations and that this is evidenced by the fact that Great Britain in the United States entered into treaties with these tribes and the tribes are self-governing that they make war for example like any other sovereign government but the court then went on to say that tribes are not states of the union that their domestic dependent nations and that's this phrase that you may have heard before that the court used to describe Indian tribes domestic dependent nations SiC dependent nation the court held the treaties were tribes in the United States wherein the tribe the tribe agreed to come under the protection of the United States it gave up alliances the right to make alliances with other other governments so those treaties divested the tribe of what the court referred to as external sovereignty but at the same time they retained internal sovereignty internal governing authority so that that that distinction I think becomes very important as we get into more modern eras of Indian law the distinction the court makes there that tribes are sovereign but they their external sovereignty as as somewhat limited because of their relationship with the United States but their internal sovereignty that their power and government internal affairs remains very broad or and and that becomes very important I think later on when the courts looked insight to this case so that although Cherokee versus Georgia articulated very important law principles of Indian law that forts still cite to today it didn't resolve the dispute between the Cherokee Nation and the state of Georgia because the court ultimately concluded that it didn't have jurisdiction so there was still this dispute out there so then the next year the Kay another case came before the court Worcester versus Georgia and Samuel Worcester was a Gennari that lived in the Cherokee Nation and the Cherokees were fine with Samuel Worcester being there and and doing his work in the Cherokee territory but Georgia convicted mr. Wooster of violating a state law that prevent prohibited non-indians from being an Indian country without a license and to give you some idea of just how high the tensions were at this point between Georgia and the United States over these issues Georgia didn't even file a brief in the case so if you can imagine a case coming before the United States Supreme Court today where one party just doesn't even file a brief it doesn't show up for oral argument and that's what Georgia did in this case and the opinion ultimately included very strong language that analogized tribes to foreign powers so you can see Justice Marshall sort of walking back a little bit from his language and Johnson V McIntosh been analogizing tribes to sovereign powers and it made absolutely clear in this opinion that Georgia laws had no application in Indian country in the Cherokee territory and it emphasized the the tribes plenary authority within its own territory and it said that because of the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution Georgia's laws had no force at all in Indian country and we saw versus Georgia and these these principles of limited state power in Indian country still hold true today there's still a presumption that an Indian country state laws don't have any force in effect but the subsequent cases from the court have modified this rule somewhat and we're going to get into that and in a few minutes after we take a break do my capstone asset management seoul York College.