Andrew Jackson Veto The Maysville Road Bill

Andrew Jackson was a contradictory president who had many constitutional and unconstitutional arguments when it came to using his executive power, such as when he vetoed the Maysville Road Bill and the Second National Bank, which was either based on his own personal bias, or how beneficial it would be to the United States. Therefore justifying whether he was vetoing a bill based on actually analyzing the institutions and effects of their removal or result of arbitrary decisions with little analysis is based on ones perspective. The vetoing of the Second National Bank and the Maysville Road Bill is great example of how he used his vetoing powers and in what regard.

The vetoing of the Maysville Road Bill is controversial. There are controversies

These faults included overextended credit and improperly regulating money among the states. Furthermore, the hesitation of the First National Bank accompanied the Second National Bank. This hesitation was from the states, and their concern with how the National Bank would interfere with the states way of regulating money. The states argued using the 10th amendment that they have the right to regulate their own banks, since it is not stated in the Constitution that the United States had the power to regulate the banks within a state. Therefore Jackson questioned the validity of the bank and whether the bank was constitutional. Jackson as well contemplated whether the bank benefited the “common people.” He argued that the wealthy and elite economically benefited more from the national bank than compared to the rest of the public or “common people.” After Jackson saw all perspectives of the national bank he chose to deny the bill to recharter the second national bank. So Andrew Jackson used his highest executive power to overrule the supreme court and the Congress on their decision to pass the bill of rechartering the bank. This veto is a demonstration of how he analyzed the effects and the removal of the bank, and how he made a decision based on the welfare of the Unites States rather than vetoing based on his own personal