Impeachment of Andrew Jackson It is impossible to address President Jackson’s potential violation of the separation of powers without considering the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States itself. Although the Supreme Court was in favor of the creation of the bank, the fact remains that the National Bank could not exist without the stretching of powers and a loose interpretation of the Constitution. While this loose interpretation may help the nation’s richest become even richer, it completely goes against the main ideals of the countries founding fathers. So, therefore President Jackson’s actions, then, are merely the solutions to the problem of an unconstitutional institution. Jackson cannot be challenged for refusing to recharter the bank, since this is his right as chief executive. While removing its funding was not explicitly within his sphere of power, he cannot be trailed for refusing to recharter the bank because this is in his right of power. So, removing funds was a logical course of action to confront a question of constitutionality and national …show more content…
The national bank was incredibly biased in its working, which completely eliminated any equal opportunities for the nation’s people. The bank only favored those who were amongst the rich and powerful. For one, the bank has most frequently been run by those tied to Northern industry. Therefore, little funding or loans have been given to western expansion or to any other southern interests. In addition to these biased actios, Congress itself has granted exclusive privileges to wealthy bank stockholders. The bank was immensely beneficial to a small group of individuals, and harmful to the rest of the nation. Therefore, Jacksons action were due to his promise to defend and support the “common man” of the nation in order to withhold American values and his own ideals of