Alan Martinez November 11, 2017 History 1301 President Jackson's Nullification Proclamation (1832). Pdf. In this proclamation, Jackson opposes the constitution and responds by saying that whoever does not listen will be punished. Also, he said if anyone tries to bring in goods then will close the ports. He said that regardless with the constitution put in place he was not going to let the states follow its laws. Jackson says that the laws were not current and that and that people from the union lost the real laws. He said that the people declared the us to be a nation and not a individually state governed nation. This argument is important because it helps me and others understand that the meaning of liberty during the time frame meant to …show more content…
The president is allowed to take away any land claimed by the indian tribes including any lands that were improved or refurbished by the indian tribes. However there is a section that states the protection of the tribes as they are forced into estranged territories. This document was useful for me in understanding briefly how the U.S, through law, pushed the indian tribes to migrate to other locations in order to continue manifest destiny. “Transcript of Gibbons v. Ogden (1824).” Our Documents - Transcript of Gibbons v. Ogden (1824). Accessed November 10, 2017. https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc This impactful court case was based on two men who thought their licenses outweighed one another. It is clear based on this transcript of the Gibbons and Ogden case that congress was given the power to control regulation of interstate waterway commerce. Every state in the nation was connected by waterways and marshall made his point that without the power of congress, commerce cannot be carried out through the states. If states were allowed that control , then they would have their own rules about commerce, therefore, commerce would have been impossible and producers and consumers would not be able to sell or buy products under uniform law. Hence, it is why the articles of confederation were put to an end in order to prevent states from eventually holding the power to control interstate
Jackson believed that since he was voted president by the people of the United States that he was the most legitimate represented of the
Webster argued the Constitution was design to settle such economic disputes between states. Allowing concurrent laws to conflict would be dangerous and contagious if not handled by the federal government. Attorney Writ supported the federal supremacy over these states was enumerated in the Constitution. Gibbons’ steamboats operated “among several states” (US National Archives & Records Administration n.d.), and the Commerce Clause states, “ Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among several States, and with Indian tribes” (US National Archives & Records Administration n.d.). Gibbons’ steamboats in fact operated in New Jersey and in New York; therefore it aptly applied in this situation.
Gibbons v. Ogden was a court case which debated the right to carry passengers along a canal from New York to New Jersey. This established more federal authority over the states which caused animosity throughout the country. The “corrupt bargain” occurred out of the Election of 1824 in which
Marshall addresses this issue when he argues, “It is the government of all; its powers are delegated by all; it represents all, and acts for all.” Marshall makes it clear that the Union, governed by the Federal government, which was established by the People, has dominion over all the enumerated states. That the Federal Constitution serves to, “necessarily bind its component parts.” According to Marshall, the Union is no longer a loosely tied league of independent states, it is now a Country of unified, but uniquely separate, entities; it is a Federalist republic.
On December 10, 1832, President Andrew Jackson issued the proclamation of the nullity, which stated that States and municipalities have banned void federal laws. It also threatened to enforce the proclamation with the use of federal weapons. Although the commitment of Congress soon defused the situation, proclamation of Jackson made it clear that the federal Government was the supreme power in the United States and its willingness to use the army to ensure its supremacy. The debate on the question of nullity actually began before Andrew Jackson. Step of highly protectionist tariff of 1828 upset many people in South Carolina.
As shown in the picture, the Constitution is ripped up. This demonstrates his careless approach to office. When inaugurated, you must obey certain rules, one being, you must abide by the Constitution. However, the drawing implies that Jackson chose to ignore this important document that was followed by all Americans. Also, Jackson is stepping on the Constitution, which means he has no respect for it.
When Congress established the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act, Jackson refused to follow it (nullification) and instead helped the state with their actions. He fully supported the state decision. This is ironic to his later decisions as president for more power to the federal government. 7. Gold in GA • After the gold is discovered in 1829, whites start flooding into Georgia and attack Cherokee settlements.
This misuse of power is the reason why cartoons like "King Andrew The First," were created. By showing him as a likeness to a playing card king, this cartoon exemplifies Jacksons occasional disregard for the constitution and his tyrannical abuse of power. It is arguable that Jackson did have some good points. Jackson's response to the nullification proclamation was a just and constitutionally sound one.
Andrew Jackson Pro-Impeachment President Andrew Jackson violated states’ rights when he was dealing with south Carolina in the nullification crisis, he issued a proclamation to south Carolina that went against the rights given to each state that allows them to nullify a federal law that they do not agree upon. His proclamation also weakened the states’ power and used it to strengthen his view of government supremacy. We stand for impeachment of Andrew Jackson because he used his presidential influence to overrule the states’ rights. At this point in the 1830s, the unionist philosophy was very strong, the philosophy was “one nation under god, indivisible”.
In the article “Abuse of Power: Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act of 1830,” the author, Alfred A. Cave, writes about President Jackson’s abuse of power. He is arguing that Jackson abused his power when he was enforcing the Indian Removal Act. He argues that Jackson broke guarantees he made to the Indians. He uses a political methodology and uses secondary sources.
The Indian removal act authorized Jackson to give the Indian federal land west of the Mississippi River in exchange for the land they occupied in the East and South. This act kicked the Indians out of their lands and caused them to walk on the “trail of
In keeping with the principle, Jackson tried to abolish the College Electors (those who choose the president) by Constitutional amendment.” This quote shows President Jackson’s heroism in fighting for the people to have the power to elect their president directly. Many people would disagree and say Andrew Jackson is a villain, he did do things that were frowned upon. Probably the most negative thing is the Indian Removal Act.
A landmark case Gibbons vs. Ogden, the chief justice ruled that the power to regulate interstate commerce also included the power to regulate interstate navigation. Within its decision of the courts the
He believed Jackson needed a reality check. The Indians were there first, it was their land. He force the Natives to move away from their homeland, with brute force. He believes Jackson could not justify his actions just because it was for America’s benefit. He also stated Jackson refused to listen to many people, and he refused to let Indians live.
One of the biggest thing that Jackson had done as a president was in 1832. Jackson vetoed a bill that would renew the second bank charter early. Jackson stated “I will kill it!”. He said this because he didn’t like the bank at all and he believed that it made the rich richer and the poor poorer. He said in his veto message “It is easy to conceive that great evils to our country and its institutions might flow from such a concentration of power in the hands of a few men irresponsible to the people.”