Johnson v. McIntosh
Johnson v. McIntosh case was that private citizens could not purchase lands from Native Americans. This did not allow people to do commerce with the Native Americans. Johnson wanted to purchase land from the Piankeshaw but was not allowed to. He then entered a case against McIntosh, but still, private citizens could not purchase land from the Native Americans. This contradicts with the constitution because the constitution has a clause(s) saying that the US should do commerce with the Native Americans, but private citizens are not allowed to purchase any land from the Native Americans or do any commerce with them. The clause that says that the US should do commerce with the Native Americans is “The Congress shall have Power to ...regulate Commerce...with the Indian Tribes....” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). Although, some would say that the Constitution states that America should do commerce with the Indians, and not citizens, the Constitution continuously uses America the citizens of America.
The 9th Amendment states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This means that just because something is not in the constitution, it doesn't mean it’s not a law. There is a clause in the Constitution that say that the US should do commerce with Native Americans “The Congress shall have the Power to…regulate Commerce…with Indian Tribes…” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) Although, the US Government did make a law the said that US citizens could not purchase land from the Indians. Showing, that the Johnson v. McIntosh case is not unconstitutional and does not contradict with the Constitution because the 9th Amendment shows that the law that did not allow American citizens to do commerce with Indians is still a law that needs to be followed even though it is not in the Constitution. Therefore the Johnson v. McIntosh case and verdict contradictes with the Constitution.
The 9th Amendment states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This means that just because something is not in the constitution, it doesn't mean it’s not a law. There is a clause in the Constitution that say that the US should do commerce with Native Americans “The Congress shall have the Power to…regulate Commerce…with Indian Tribes…” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) Although, the US Government did make a law the said that US citizens could not purchase land from the Indians. Showing, that the Johnson v. McIntosh case is not unconstitutional and does not contradict with the Constitution because the 9th Amendment shows that the law that did not allow American citizens to do commerce with Indians is still a law that needs to be followed even though it is not in the Constitution. Therefore the Johnson v. McIntosh case and verdict contradictes with the Constitution.