If that’s the case, then Jackson’s actions in regards the Indians, in a legal sense, were more like acts of war without just cause, without provocation and and without an act of Congress, and a violation of a Supreme Court ruling which would have restrained his aggressions, (thus doubly un-Constitutional), as well as trespassing, theft, fraud, aggravated assault, arson, kidnapping, and murder.
Yes, an act of war, from the Indian perspective, is a better characterization.
However, congress was in with Jackson in continually changing treaties and laws in what was effectively a one-sided contract change.
That’s why congress didn’t impeach him after the supreme court ruling.