Today in class you voted whether or not you thought that Jackson should be impeached. Explain your reasoning.
Make sure you:
§Articulate your point of view (5 points)
§Bring in specific examples that support your argument. (bring in key terms, ideas…) Now you can make references to issues that you were not arguing in class. (10 points)
§Make comments to the person who blogged before you/either agreeing and explaining why, or disagreeing and explaining why . (10 points)
Based on the three topics discussed in class (Banks, Nullification and Native Americans) it is clear that Jackson should not be impeached. With every action comes a consequence, sometimes positive, sometimes negative and other times both. In considering Jackson’s impeachment it is most important to focus on if he upheld his duty as President, which entails acting in the best interest of America. Consequences should be considered, but the main reason for impeachment should be bad or selfish intentions, since all Presidents have had to face a negative consequence for an action at some point during their term in office. Jackson, in all three of the areas discussed in class, acted not for his own benefits, but for the best interest of society and thus does not deserve to be impeached.
ReplyDeleteBANKS: The President of the banks, Nicholas Biddle, created a bank system that benefitted the wealthy elite, at the expense of the common man. Noticing this violation of societal interest, Jackson immediately deemed the banks unconstitutional and vetoed their establishment. Jackson tried to create new currency systems through the Specie Circular and Pet Banks. Even though these systems did not work as well as planned, Jackson should not be impeached for this, as his intentions were all just. Jackson was ensuring that the wealthy did not gain abusive power over Americans. He acted within his limitations as President to make sure the common man was protected.
NULLIFICATION CRISIS: In creating the Force Bill and forbidding nullification, Jackson was trying to prevent sectionalism amongst the states. If states could disregard any law at any time, there would be no way for Jackson to maintain order in society. Also, states would have conflicting opinions about which laws are unconstitutional, which would only lead to hostility in the Union. The 10th Amendment gives states the powers not already delegated to the federal government. Since the President has the power to veto the law under the Constitution, that power is not delegated to the states, thus Jackson was not violating the rights of South Carolina in dealing with the Nullification Crisis.
NATIVE AMERICANS: Jackson hoped to gain more opportunities and prosperity for Americans by passing the Indian Removal Act. By forcing Native Americans to resettle west of the Mississippi River, Jackson was appeasing land-hungry Americans. By opening up the West for American settlement, Jackson was trying to gain more land for crop production and economic prosperity. Further, by supporting Georgia in the trial against the Cherokees, Jackson was continually showing his support for the States, as it was his duty as President to support his people. He let the Native Americans stay in American, yet acted so as to make sure Americans were benefitted.
Cayla Pettinato
After reviewing the actions by President Andrew Jackson, I have come to the conclusion that he should not be impeached. Although critics of Jackson can accuse him of over stepping his power during the bank war and disregarding natural rights of humans during the Trail of tears, all of Jackson's actions were for the good of the people of the United States. Taking into consideration the problems Jackson was faced with, he did what any reasonable president would do, and should therefore not be impeached.
ReplyDeleteDuring the war with the bank, certain measurements taken by Jackson stirred a great deal of controversy and led many to believe Jackson was acting from his personal opinions to benefit only himself. For example, the "Pet Bank" incident in which President Jackson removed federal funds from the Second Bank of the United States and dispersed them to state banks. Although Jackson may have been against the bank, the intentions behind the pet banks were to help the common man. By dispersing the money to state banks, Jackson hoped to improve individual state economies, which would in turn be beneficial to the agrarian class that was in need of help. Jackson also tried to better his country by ordering the Specie Circular. This required land purchased to be paid with hard money, an idea that helped prevent inflation. It is true that the president does not have power to create laws, but in a case like this where the economy is on the edge of breaking down, the president must be able to do what he thinks is right for the country. Andrew Jackson's actions may not have turned out the way he liked, but in the end, he did what he did for the better of the United States.
The Presidents actions regarding the Native Americans should not be grounds for impeachment. Yes, Jackson forced the Native Americans to move west in the Indian Removal Act. Though some deem this act as unconstitutional, Jackson did the right thing. He prevented violence between the Americans and the Native Americans and all together protected his country. A President should do whatever it takes to protect his country and in this case it meant forcing the Indians to relocate.
Should a President be at risk of impeachment for trying to protect his country? Absolutely not! Those who want to impeach the President need to take a moment to consider the circumstances Jackson was faced with. Maybe then they will see the true value of Jackson's decisions.
In regard to the Nullification crisis, I completely agree with Cayla when she stated that the tenth Amendment gives states the powers not granted to the federal government and that the president already has the power to veto laws under the Constitution. Therefore, the states should not be able to nullify laws they do not agree with. By forbidding nullification, Jackson prevented many future problems and did what was best for his country.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Jackson should not be impeached because the actions he took during his presidency were constitutional. As Article II states a president should be impeached if they commit a high crime of misdemeanor. Jackson's dealing with the bank, actions taken during the Nullification Crisis and the Indians Removal Act were certainly constitutional.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Jackson shut down the national bank because he saw the system as unfair for the people. He thought that the banking system would only benefit the wealthy so he shut down the power of the bank to benefit the people. During the Nullification Crisis Jackson did take military action, but this was only in order to keep South Carolina from succeeding. This was a necessary step because it was Jackson's job to preserve the Union. Finally, during the Indian Removal Act president Jackson tried to remove the Indians only to benefit the people of his country, or the citizens. They stood as a threat to the people of the land.
Andrew Jackson should not be impeached for doing his job and looking out for the country as a whole. Plus everything he did during his presidency was constitutional so there is no evidence of his wrongdoing.
-Cassidy Cohen
I agree with Emily because she said Jackson overstepped his power as the president but this was only for the good of his own people. Emily says that Jackson did the right thing by moving the Native American's to the west. This prevented future problems/violence between the Native Americans and the citizens of the United States. Jackson was trying to protect his country, which is a presidents job, so he should not be impeached.
ReplyDelete_Cassidy Cohen
I completely agree with both Emily and Cassidy. Emily made a very valid point that most people accuse Jackson of overstepping his limitations as President under the Constitution in creating laws like the ones regarding the bank. She justifies this perfectly in saying that Jackson must do what is best for his nation, and if that entails creating a law, than he is right to do just that, in order to fulfill his obligation to pacify and ensure the prosperity of American citizens. Cassidy further proves this point with the Nullification Crisis, saying that Jackson’s use of military threat was necessary to ensure the unity and preservation of the states.
ReplyDeleteCayla Pettinato
Andrew Jackson, with every obstacle thrown at him, has proven to be a fair and true President to the people of the United States. Jackson, though his decisions over made over the Nullification Crisis, the National Bank, and the Native Americans may not have favored everyone, he still made the right decisions as the President. Therefore, he should not be impeached for the dissatisfaction of some individuals. In all three situations President Jackson acted for his country and not based on his own beliefs and what would personally satisfy him. A strong leader needs to have that quality, the ability to put aside any personal desires and act based on what would most benefit the people of the country. President Andrew Jackson had this quality, and he used it in the toughest situations, and although not everyone was completely satisfied, he should not be impeached for doing what was right.
ReplyDeleteThe Nullification Crisis: In the nullification crisis, the idea was spread throughout the nation that states had the right to decide whether or not to obey a federal law, based on whether it was valid or void. If the states had this power to disregard any law at any time, there would be no order, and chaos could easily erupt. When President Jackson forbade nullification and issued the Force Bill (gave President authority to take military action in South Carolina), he did it not to strip the states of their rights, but to maintain order, and ensure that tasks would get done without the states’ refusal. President Jackson was justified in doing this according to the tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, because in this Amendment it states that the federal government takes precedent over the state government, and therefore Andrew Jackson is justified in his actions.
Banks: Andrew Jackson was known to be “the common man,” because he worked in ways to help the common man, and promote democracy and equality amongst the whole nation. However, the national bank was attempting to benefit the wealthy elites under the management of Nicholas Biddle. This left the common man with the shorter end of the stick. When Jackson recognized this violation, he deemed the bank unconstitutional and vetoed it immediately. In doing this, he created Pet Banks as a substitute and tried to renew the country’s currency by issuing a presidential order known as Specie Circular. Although the effects were not all positive, he was looking out for the best interests of the common man, and promoting equality in the federal bank so therefore should not be impeached for his executive decisions.
The Native Americans: In passing the Indian Removal Act, Andrew Jackson was attempting to better the economy and prosperity of America. By opening the west for farmers, new cash crops and raw materials would benefit all aspects of the country’s economy. The farmers would profit by selling raw materials for factories in the North, and for trade overseas as well. The economy would flourish for all parts of the country with the open opportunity in the west. Andrew Jackson should not be impeached for looking out for these interests.
I agree with Cassidy in her decision that President Jackson should not be impeached. Cassidy says that he followed all his presidential duties by acting under the Constitution and looking out for the interests of the common man. She says there is no evidence of his wrongdoing and therefore, he did his job well and to the best of his ability. Nobody should be punished for that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Jackson may have taken extra liberties that none before him have Andrew Jackson should not, I repeat, SHOULD NOT be impeached. Throughout his presidency Jackson acted within the guidelines of the Constitution and always looked out for the best interests of his nation.
ReplyDelete- Did he commit a crime? Article 2 of the Constitution says, "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Did Jackson commit any of these? Not a chance.
- Nullification Crisis-President Andrew Jackson should not be impeached for his removal of the act because into where in the Constitution does it state that the states have a right to nullify a federal law. Additionally, in his second inaugural address, President Andrew Jackson clearly establishes that his main goal is to preserve the Union not to gain more power for himself. "Our Union it must be preserved." Also, It would be impossible for him to accomplish and maintain this goal if a state could ignore any law at any time without having to be questioned for their reasoning behind their nullification. President Andrew Jackson, in dealing with South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis, not only had good intentions but was in fact doing his job as president as he established in his inaugural address. He was in no way shape or form committing a crime which could lead to impeachment.
-Banks- Jackson also committed no crime when he was dealing with the United States Banks. Jackson recognized how the Banks created sectionalism and in attempt to keep the peace he overthrew the banks and created Pet Banks. Pet Banks were created for the good of the common man. Also, the Specie Circular system which minimized an inflationary trend was also for the good of the nations economy. In the end Jackson made decisions to support the people and economy.
- Native Americans- Jackson passed the Indian Removal Act which forced the resettlement of many thousands of Native Americans. However it was all for his nation and in the best interest of his countries future because it allowed for more farmland and more crops. Additionally by supporting the states against the Indians in Worcester vs. Georgia (1832) Jackson displays his ongoing support for his people.
- I agree with what Cayla said completely. I like how she pointed out how with every action comes a reaction. She claims that Jackson's actions were all in good intentions and all for the best interests of his nation. She goes into further detail when she says consequences should be considered but intentions should be the overriding issue because a president can actually control his intentions.
I agree with the prior blogs in that Andrew Jackson does not deserve to be impeached. Cassidy brought up the correct point in that Andrew Jackson did not do anything wrong that was un-constitutional. Jackson did what he believed was right and was trying to help the country in every move he made.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Jackson wanted to get rid of non American citizens that were occupying land that belonged to the U.S. He did this by creating the Indian Removal Act which forced the Cherokee nation west or they had the option to stay in their homes and become citizens. Andrew Jackson signed this document with only good intentions in mind; he wanted to give land to his people so he can make a profit for the government.
Andrew Jackson is justified in his actions during the nullification crisis. Many reasons for this is that the tenth amendment to the Bill of Rights gives power to the Federal Government to overrule any law passed by a state government. Andrew Jackson exercised this right and was at no fault to do so when he used his right for the state of South Carolina. Andrew Jackson’s main goal was to avoid sectionalism between the states.
Andrew Jackson did what he saw was right for the government and the economy on the issue of banks. Jackson created pet banks as a way to solve the debt and economic crisis of the country. Pet Banks helped in that they separated the federal money in many smaller banks. I agree with Alexa in that the original banks benefited the wealthy, so Jackson tried to create a bank for the poor and get rid of sectionalism
Andrew Jackson does not deserve to be impeached as his actions were only for the good of his country.
Zack Davidoff
Jackson should not be impeached because he did not commit any crimes or violate the constitution. Although some of his actions were wrong in a moral sense. With regard to the bank, nullification crisis, and Indian removal act, he made decisions that would make him seem like a villain, but he did not violate the constitution. Also, his intentions were good and he did not mean to discriminate against anyone.
ReplyDeleteFor the bank, the original bank system benefitted the elite at the expense of the common person. Jackson tried to improve this system with the Specie Circular and the Pet Banks. Both of these ideas failed because people did not have mass amounts of gold or silver. Jackson should not be impeached because he tried to help the common man. He did not intend for these plans to fail. Although they had bad consequences, Jackson did not violate the constitution in any way.
For the Nullification Crisis, South Carolina was being ridiculous. A state cannot chose which tax they chose to pay or nullify. Also, states do not even have the power to nullify a law. Although the Protective Tariff was unfair to the south, he should not be impeached because he was only trying to help the northern economy. It could be argued that this did create sectionalism between the north and south, but Jackson did not intend to hurt the south. His intentions were good but the south resented him for raising the prices of goods that they would have to buy.
For the Indian Removal Act, Jackson made a decision that would affect an entire race of people. The Native Americans were forced to move to western lands. This process, which began after Jackson was out of office, was called the Trail of Tears. The reason behind Jackson signing the Indian Removal Act was that he wanted to provide immigrants with more land on the western frontier. This was probably Jackson’s most morally corrupt decision, but his intentions were to improve the life of Americans that were trying to make their lives on the western frontier.
I agree with Cayla completely because every president makes choices that end up not working. Although Jackson’s decisions ended up hurting the Union, his intentions were good and he did not mean to cause anyone any harm. Although his decisions were not the best in a moral sense, Jackson tried to help his country and did not violate any part of the Constitution.
-Matt Cysner
After discussing the various issues during Jackson's presidency, it is clear now that Pesident Jackson should not be impeached. According to Article II of the constitution, a president has to commit a serious misdemeanor in order for impeachment. The honorable Andrew Jackson did what he could, with god intentions. He did not, under any circumstances, commit crimes of high misdemeanor.
ReplyDeletePresident Jackson had tried to help the common folk when he terminated the federal bank. He looked to Nicholas Biddle as an arrogant aristocrat that only sought to benefit the elite and Jackson wanted to fix that. Jackson also tried to cut back federal spending and gave the funds to state banks and created pet banks in the process. When inflation started to become rampant and currency fraud running high, he created a system of Specie Circular in order to abate the inflation and fraud. Though the veto of the federal bank ended up hurting the economy, Jackson neither knew of the consequence nor commit a crime to be impeached.
During the Nullification Crisis, South Carolina was being absurd. Jackson wanted to support individual rights and state rights but that was with regards to preserving the union. When one state stops paying taxes, the entire country begins to split apart. Jackson chose the right time to use force in order to preserve the Union. He even lowered the Protective Tariff in order to appease to the south. thus, Jackson commited no foul crime that called for impeachment.
President Jackson also was questioned for the Indian Removal Act, a decree that led to the removal of the native americans from their land. Jackson had not intended to kill over 4000 Indians. He wanted the land for the thousands of immigrants flooding America at the time. With the coastal regions filling up, he had no choice but to remove some Indians. However cruel and unjust this was for the Indians, it was by no means a crime of high misdemeanor and thus should not become impeached.
I agree with Matt Cysner. Though President Jackson meant well for the Union, he was not as informed as some people wish he was, and therefore he made some decisions that ended up hurting the Union. Still, Jackson commited no high crimes and did not violate any section of the Constitution.
Michael Chen
I do not think that Jackson should be impeached because although he may have made mistakes, he did not do anything that would justify his impeachment. It is ridiculous that Jackson could have been violating state’s rights, when he was a man who supported democracy, and limiting federal power and spending.
ReplyDeleteIn the Nullification crisis, Jackson sided with the states, an act that would show that he wanted to help keep the Union together and keep the power of the states in tact. Some might argue that the pendulum swung too far and that Jackson took too much of the power from the states, however I disagree with this. Although it might have seemed as if Jackson was favoring the Northern states over the Southern states, Jackson was really just trying to make a point that each state did not have the right to decide whether or not they were going to follow a law. His decision to keep the Tariff of Abominations had nothing to do with the his favoring of the North, but rather his need to make clear that all states had to follow the same laws. If Jackson didn’t do this, states would feel like they could do whatever they wanted and wouldn’t obey the law. Jackson’s goal of wanting to preserve the Union is also apparent in his actions during the Nullification Crisis, because it shows that he wanted to give all states the same rights to preserve equality.
Jackson’s authority was also questioned in the Indian Removal Act. Jackson wanted to help the economy and try to keep the peace by moving the Native Americans west. Jackson wanted to feed the land hungry Americans by allowing them to take the land that was previously occupied by the natives, but allow them to resettle in a different part of the country. Jackson gave the Natives more respect and rights than others would have, and thought it was important to have a peaceful encounter with the natives as well. It is argued that the in the Trail of Tears, Jackson committed murder as 15,000 natives began the difficult trek to the west, however Jackson was not even in office at this time, which makes the opposing argument invalid.
Although some may argue that Jackson should have been impeached, I disagree because I believe that the amount of good that Jackson did for the economy and for the Union as a whole out ways the negatives.
I agree with Alexa in that Jackson should not be impeached. Alexa argued that even though not everything Jackson did had a positive effect on the nation, he was looking out for the common man and put aside all his personal beliefs for the good of the country. Jackson was doing what he thought was right, and just because not everyone agreed with him, he was truly doing what he thought would help the nation as a whole, which is not wrong!
Although President Jackson had his success and failures during his two terms of presidency, President Jackson proved to do his best to help the common people and be the common man. Therefore, President Jackson should not be impeached.
ReplyDeleteJackson's concern for the national bank was reasonable because it was privately owned and controlled by the wealthy. Jackson wanted to equally spread the wealth to the states for he believed the bank abused its powers. As a result, the "pet banks" were created where he transferred funds to various state banks. He did not spend the money for his own use and purpose, but for the people and the states. The Specie Circular was created in order for Jackson to check the inflationary trend. Although the nation plunged into depression, it was an effort that Jackson committed to "abate the inflation and fraud" as quoted by Michael. President Jackson did not act carelessly, he acted for the people.
In the Indian Removal Act of 1830, Jackson urged the Native Americans to leave their homelands and resettle west of the Mississippi. By 1835, most eastern tribes already agreed and moved west. Jackson did not just kick them out of their home with nowhere to go, he provided new land west of the Mississippi. He did what he thought was best for the Americans and the Native Americans. President Jackson showed his respect and as stated, most Native Americans agreed to and compiled. It was after Jackson's presidency that the US Army forced 15,000 Cherokees to leave Georga, also known as the Trail of Tears. President Jackson was not even in term when that happened and therefore should not be blamed nor accused for the Trail of Tears.
For the nullification crisis regarding South Carolina, President Jackson used the best of his executive power to settle the conflict with S. Carolina. Jackson favored states' rights but did not if it lead to disunion. South Carolina's defiance to pay taxes and follow the law hurt the unified power that Jackson wanted to keep. To stop America from being disunited, he used his force to keep down the crisis. The Tariff of Abominations, The Force Bill and the Proclamation to the People of South Carolina were to warn and show the importance of being a united state. He also eventually lowered the tariff to appease to the South. President Jackson did nothing that justify his impeachment.
I agree with Izzy's statement that "it is ridiculous that Jackson could have been violating state’s rights, when he was a man who supported democracy, and limiting federal power and spending." President Jackson was for the common man and a commom man himself. He did nothing wrong to be impeached in his seat as president; he only did his best to help and keep the nation united and unified.
Taking into account what we learned in class about the Nullification Crisis, the Indian Removal Act, and the Bank Wars, it is clear that President Andrew Jackson should have been impeached for his actions. It is important to understand that actions speak louder than words, and though Jackson's intentions had been good and for the better of the country, his actions were unconstitutional and hurt America as well as the Cherokee nation. Based on the Nullification Crisis, Jackson did not do anything that could provide grounds for his impeachment, but based on the Indian Removal Act and his actions regarding the NAtional Bank, it is clear that his unconstitutional ways classify as high crimes, which therefore provide reason for impeachment.
ReplyDeleteNULLIFICATION: In regards to this crisis, Jackson had said that "Our federal Union, it must be preserved." He, to the best of his ability, did what he could to keep his country together. The bottom line was that the constitution did not give states the power to nullify laws, and if one state decided that they could nullify a law because they didn't like it, that would open up the flood-gates, and all the states would nullify every single law that did not favor them. Jackson understood that this would in turn give the states way too much power, and tip over the central government. He issued a Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, which stated that nullification and disunion were treason. After this he also persuaded Congress to pass a bill which gave him the authority to take military action in South Carolina. He also suggested that the Congress lower the tariff that South Carolina nullified. He did nothing that he didn't have the power to do, and in the end saved his country from disunion. In regards to this crisis, President Jackson did not do anything that would classify as a "high crime or misdemeanor", and should therefore not be impeached based solely on it.
THE INDIAN REMOVAL ACT: Regarding this act, it is important to understand that according to the case Worcester v. Georgia, the high count had ruled that the laws of Georgia had no force within the boundaries of the Cherokee territory. It is also important to take into account that the Cherokee Nation was in fact an independent nation, with its own government and own laws. With this being stated, it is clear that President Jackson's actions towards the Cherokee nation were both unjust and inhumane. He passed the Indian removal act in 1830 because he wanted to please his people, but he did not take into account the fact that the Indians had a right to be on their land, and that they were people too. With this act he forced them to move away from their homes and onto lands that he saw fit for them. Thought the Trail of Tears did not occur until after Jackson had left office, he had laid the groundwork, and was responsible for the act that killed 4,000 Cherokee. In regards to Worcester v. Georgia, Jackson allowed the states to go against what the central government had stated, and in doing so gave the states more power than was allotted in the Constitution, and also abused the powers of the Judicial Branch. Overall, Jackson should be impeached for the Indian Removal Act, because it was immoral and unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteTHE BANK WARS: The president's actions in regard to the National Bank provide grounds which are strong enough on their own to prove that Jackson should be impeached. He destroyed the bank by both vetoing the bank-recharter, and by moving federal funds into pet banks. He vetoed the bank recharter because he believed that the bank only benefitted the elite, and as the "People's President", he saw it as his duty to destroy anything that favored only the rich. After the veto, he should have waited for the bank to die a natural death, but instead he moved the federal funds into state banks, right after congress had agreed by a 2/3 majority that the funds should stay where they are. In addition to this, the Head of Treasury had the right to move the funds, NOT the president. With this action he went against the power of both Congress and the Head of Treasury, which was a direct violation of the Constitution. On top of all of this, he also passed the Specie Circular, which in turn caused the Panic of 1937. Though his intentions in regard to the National Bank were positive, his actions were completely unconstitutional, and could therefore be classified as a high crime, providing a basis for his impeachment.
I do not agree with Alexa, mainly because I do not believe that Jackson put aside his personal beliefs at all in regards to anything besides the Nullification Crisis, which I saw as the only positive thing that Jackson did throughout his Presidency. With the Indian Removal Act, it is important to take into account that Jackson's concept of democracy did not extend to Native Americans. He also sympathized with the land-hungry citizens, and with this being said I don't understand how exactly he put aside his personal beliefs, as his matched those of the average American. In addition to this, his personal beliefs in regards to the Bank Wars were what drove him to destroy it. He believed that the bank was evil. He was the one that then created a vendetta against it. Therefore its incomprehensible as to how Jackson put aside his personal beliefs, when they were in fact what drove him to destroy the bank.
President Jackson has been through some very tough times in his presidency of 8 years but through out this time he has stayed loyal to his country and a very trustworthy man. Jackson has been faced with some very tough decisions from dealing with the always stressful native american situation and the indian removal act that goes along with that to the National Banks. Jackson tried to help everyone but its not possible that everyone can be happy with the decision that was made by him and he did his absolute best to try and please everyone with the decisions that were made. He tried to please everyone but its impossible to so he had to be strong and make the decision that he as the president thought was the best for the people and the country. He was strong throughout all of his decisions and he should not be impeached under any circumstances.
ReplyDeleteOne of Jacksons main focuses was on the Native Americans in Passing the Indian Removal Act which would help the economy get going by making the west available so that they could go there. There would be the opportunity for the country to get more crops and other materials which then would help the economy more....it is a chain reaction. Why would jackson ever be impeached for looking into something and making the economy boom.
In the case of the National Bank, Jackson also known to be the "common man" due to his ways of working to help the common man. The National bank was not being fair and tried to just help out the elite class which would not be good for the common man. In this he created pet banks which took place after he had made a claim that the national bank was unconstitutional. After all he did what he thought was right and what would help out the common man.
Cassidy's point about Jackson is the exact way that i think. What did he do wrong? She he be punished for something that he did not do? All he did during his presidency was look out for people and the common man and i agree with cassidy that he should under no circumstances be impeached.
In my opinion, taking into consideration the facts, President Andrew Jackson should not be impeached. Although Jackson was accused of ignoring the Supreme Court, which he did however he did it for good reason, in destruction of the Indians because he signed the Indian Removal Act, and because of the Banking Crisis. According to the Constitution, the president has two roles: chief executive of the federal government and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. As Commander in Chief, the president has the authority to send troops into combat, and is the only one who can decide whether to use nuclear weapons. Also As chief executive, he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons. He is allowed to make decisions based on his opinions and he is allowed to do what he thinks will better the country. At this time Jackson was thinking about the common man and wanted to do his best to make sure that the common man had a fair time in the United States.
ReplyDeleteJackson signed the Indian Removal Act hoping that it would bring fortuitous and fruitful income and happiness to America. Even though the Americans were able to go ahead and move west and were able to settle out there and create a profit for themselves, the Americans and the South settlers ended up removing the Indians from their land even though they were not citizens of the United States. The actual citizen’s kicked the domestically independent nation from their rightfully owned homeland, which was given to them under the court case of Cherokee V.S Georgia. . Although Jackson signed the Indian Removal act, he had no way of knowing how the citizens would act.
When Jackson created the Force Bill, which forbid the nullification, in order to thwart sectionalism around the country. Because all the states had different opinions to and would eventually fight over it, President Jackson had the power to veto the law under the 10th Amendment in the Constitution. This was a great move because he not only prevented the country from going to chaos, he showed his power and what he could do thus showing how he was using his power as president rightfully.
In regards to the Banks, Jackson did only what he thought was just and right, he was able to figure out that Nicholas Biddle created a banking system that was helping only the rich and wealthy and not the common man. Because of this he found that the banking plan was unjust and unconstitutional, thus he vetoed it. Since the disbandment of the bank he created the Specie Circular and Pet banks. These plans might not have worked out as well as Jackson hoped for, never the less what makes a good president is change however what makes a great president is caring about his country and changing in mind to make it a good place. President Jacksons goal was the make the common man live in a better fit society that wasn’t only catered to the wealthy.
Kevin Song