Jonah Patel
Andrew Jackson was the first sitting President to face a censure motion, which does not appear in the Constitution. In 1832, Jackson vetoed a congressional move to recharter the Second Bank of the United States, and refused to supply his Cabinet meeting notes about the decision. This led to a censure motion, which passed by a 26-20 vote. Jackson was also criticized for his treatment of the Cherokee nation, which some saw as unconstitutional. Jackson's actions regarding Native Americans and his expansion of executive power have led to debates about whether he went against the Constitution.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Pursuing policies that upheld the language and intent of the Constitution | Protected the rights of the common people |
| Expanding the power of the executive branch | Went against the rights of the common people |
| Ignoring the Supreme Court | Went against the rights of the Cherokee tribe |
| Vetoing a congressional move to recharter the Second Bank of the United States | Refused to supply documents from Cabinet meetings |
| Refusing to support Georgia | Supported the removal of Indians from Alabama and Mississippi |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Andrew Jackson's expansion of executive power
One of the most notable instances of Jackson's expansion of executive power was his handling of the Indian Removal. Jackson supported the states of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, which asserted state jurisdiction over their Indian domains. He maintained that the federal government had no right to defend the Cherokees against Georgia's encroachments. In his message to Congress on December 6, 1830, Jackson stated that the removal of Indians beyond the white settlements would "incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier." By the end of his presidency, Jackson's administration had negotiated nearly 70 removal treaties, leading to the relocation of nearly 50,000 eastern Indians and the opening up of 25 million acres of land to white settlement. This expansion of executive power by Jackson had significant consequences, including the expansion of slavery and the Trail of Tears, where thousands of Native Americans were forcibly removed from their lands.
Another example of Jackson's expansion of executive power was his handling of the Second Bank of the United States. In 1832, Jackson vetoed a congressional move to recharter the bank, a decision that was met with strong opposition from Henry Clay and the Whigs. Jackson refused to supply documents related to his veto decision, leading to a censure motion against him. The censure motion passed by a 26-20 vote, with Jackson being accused of "assuming upon himself authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both." This incident highlights how Jackson's expansion of executive power led to a fierce battle with Congress and a controversial censure motion.
Additionally, Jackson's actions during the Nullification Crisis in South Carolina also demonstrated his expansion of executive power. When South Carolina attempted to nullify Federal tariff law, Jackson used force to quell their attempts, backed by pro-Removal politicians. He also pressured Georgia's Governor to pardon men convicted under a law in question, removing the constitutional clash between the state and the federal government. Jackson's actions during this crisis showed his willingness to exert executive power to resolve conflicts between states' rights and federal authority.
In conclusion, Andrew Jackson's expansion of executive power is a complex and controversial aspect of his presidency. While some argue that he upheld the Constitution, others believe that he expanded his power at the expense of constitutional principles. His actions in the Indian Removal, the conflict over the Second Bank of the United States, and the Nullification Crisis highlight the ways in which Jackson exerted executive power and shaped the country's political landscape during his administration.
Your Body, Your Medicine, Your Constitution
You may want to see also
Jackson's veto of the Second Bank of the United States
Andrew Jackson's veto of the Second Bank of the United States was influenced by a combination of personal, political, and economic factors. Jackson had a strong personal distrust of banks, stemming from a land deal gone wrong decades earlier. He had accepted paper notes as payment, but when the buyers went bankrupt, the paper money became worthless, leaving a lasting impression on Jackson.
Beyond this personal experience, Jackson held fundamental philosophical disagreements with the concept of banking practices. He believed that only gold or silver coins, known as specie, were acceptable for transactions and viewed banking practices of issuing paper notes with suspicion. Additionally, he had a general distrust of credit, feeling that people should not borrow money to pay for what they wanted. Jackson's political beliefs also played a role in his veto. He considered the Second Bank of the United States, a federal institution, as an encroachment on states' rights. He argued that the bank concentrated too much power in the hands of a few private citizens, which could potentially be used against the government.
The economic power of the bank was another concern for Jackson. He argued that the bank's charter gave it a monopolistic market power, particularly in markets that moved financial resources domestically and internationally. This market power increased the bank's profits and, by extension, its stock price, benefiting mostly foreigners and wealthy Americans. Jackson suggested that a government-owned bank or auctioning the bank's monopoly privileges would be fairer alternatives.
Jackson also had constitutional objections to the bank. While acknowledging the precedent for a federally chartered bank, he cited the precedent for not renewing its charter in 1811. He rejected the notion that the Supreme Court was the sole arbiter of constitutionality, stating that Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each be guided by their interpretation of the Constitution. Jackson's veto message highlighted his belief that he could not reconcile his oath to uphold the Constitution with the bank's re-charter bill.
The veto had significant consequences, with supporters of the bank unable to muster a two-thirds majority to override it in 1832. The removal of federal deposits in 1833 further reduced the bank's size and influence. Jackson's determination to eliminate the bank, coupled with the defeat of the pro-Bank Whig Party in the 1834 congressional elections, sealed its fate. The Second Bank of the United States ceased to exist in 1836, and it would be over seventy-five years before the country attempted to establish another central bank.
US Constitution: Creating a Legislative Democracy
You may want to see also
Jackson's refusal to share cabinet meeting notes
Andrew Jackson's refusal to share cabinet meeting notes was a significant event that led to his censure by the Senate and raised questions about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of the US government.
In 1832, Jackson vetoed a congressional move to recharter the Second Bank of the United States. This move was opposed by Henry Clay and the Whigs, who held a majority in the Senate. Clay and the Whigs demanded that Jackson supply notes from his Cabinet meetings regarding the veto decision. Jackson, however, refused to comply with their request.
Clay then led a censure motion against Jackson, which passed by a vote of 26-20. The censure motion accused Jackson of "assuming upon himself authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both". This was the first time a censure motion had been passed against a sitting president, and it set a precedent for congressional oversight of presidential actions.
Jackson remained angry about the censure resolution for years, and his supporters had the motion expunged from the Senate records in 1837 when they controlled the chamber. The censure motion against Jackson highlighted the tensions between the executive and legislative branches of the US government and the debate over the interpretation of the Constitution.
Understanding the US Constitution and Congress
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![A Remedy for the Defects of the Constitution. By Andrew J. Wilcox 1862 [Leather Bound]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/617DLHXyzlL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
Jackson's support for Indian Removal
Andrew Jackson's support for Indian Removal was based on his belief that the union was a federation of highly esteemed states. He opposed the idea of establishing treaties with Indian tribes as if they were sovereign foreign nations. In his view, either the Indians comprised sovereign states (which violated the Constitution) or they were subject to the laws of existing states of the Union. Jackson urged Indians to assimilate and obey state laws, and he believed he could only accommodate their desire for Native self-rule in federal territories, which required resettlement on Federal lands west of the Mississippi River.
In his 1829 State of the Union address, Jackson called for Indian removal, and he actively worked towards enacting a law for "Indian removal". On May 28, 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, which was signed into law by President Jackson. The Act authorized the President to negotiate removal treaties with Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi River, primarily in Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, and North Carolina. By the end of his presidency, Jackson had negotiated almost 70 removal treaties, leading to the relocation of nearly 50,000 eastern Indians to the Indian Territory (what later became eastern Oklahoma).
Jackson declared that removal would incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier. He believed that clearing Alabama and Mississippi of their Indian populations would "enable those states to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power." The Removal Act was strongly supported in the American South, especially in Georgia, which was the largest state in 1802 and was involved in a jurisdictional dispute with the Cherokee. Jackson hoped that removal would resolve the Georgia crisis.
The Indian Removal Act was controversial, with significant opposition from many Americans, including white Christian missionaries like Jeremiah Evarts, and members of Congress such as New Jersey Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen, Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, and Tennessee Congressman Davy Crockett. Despite this opposition, Jackson and his followers persuaded, bribed, and threatened tribes into signing removal treaties and leaving their ancestral lands in the Southeast.
Understanding Our Country's Rules for Grown-Ups
You may want to see also
Jackson's nullification crisis in South Carolina
The Nullification Crisis was a sectional political crisis in the United States in 1832 and 1833, during Andrew Jackson's presidency. It ensued after South Carolina declared the federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void within the state.
The Tariff of 1828 was controversial and highly protective. It was enacted into law during the presidency of John Quincy Adams and was strongly opposed in the South. The Southern agrarian states that imported most manufactured goods perceived the tariff as putting an unfair tax burden on them. The opponents of the tariff expected that Jackson's election as president would result in its significant reduction. However, when the Jackson administration failed to address their concerns, South Carolina's most radical faction began to advocate for the state to nullify the tariff.
On July 1, 1832, Jackson signed the Tariff of 1832 into law. This tariff was a compromise that received the support of most Northerners and half the Southerners in Congress. However, South Carolina remained unsatisfied. On November 24, 1832, a state convention adopted the Ordinance of Nullification, declaring that the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and unenforceable in South Carolina after February 1, 1833.
In response to the looming political battle and to appease Southerners, Jackson advocated for rapid tariff reduction. He also gave speeches promoting unionism and asked Congress to reaffirm his authority to use force to ensure the execution of United States laws, which Congress supported in a bill known as Jackson's Force Bill. Additionally, Jackson issued a Proclamation to the People of South Carolina on December 10, 1832, characterizing the positions of the nullifiers as "impractical absurdity" and stating his belief that a state's power to annul a federal law was incompatible with the existence of the Union.
On March 1, 1833, Congress passed both the Force Bill and the Compromise Tariff of 1833, which was satisfactory to South Carolina. The South Carolina convention responded on March 15 by rescinding the Ordinance of Nullification, but three days later, it maintained its principles by nullifying the Force Bill. The Nullification Crisis made Jackson a hero to nationalists, but it also made Southerners more conscious of their minority position and vulnerability within the Union.
The Constitution: Our Federal System's Foundation
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
There are conflicting interpretations of Andrew Jackson's presidency. Some believe he consistently pursued policies that upheld the language and intent of the Constitution and protected the rights of the common people. However, others argue that he trampled on the Constitution to expand the power of the executive branch and his own agenda.
In 1834, Andrew Jackson faced the first-ever censure motion against a sitting President. Jackson was in a battle against Henry Clay and the Whigs over the Second Bank of the United States. Jackson vetoed a congressional move to re-charter the bank, and Clay asked Jackson to supply notes from his Cabinet meeting about the veto decision, which Jackson refused. Clay then led the censure motion, which passed by a 26-20 vote.
Andrew Jackson supported the states of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, which asserted state jurisdiction over their Indian domains. Jackson maintained that the federal government had no right to defend the Cherokees against Georgia's encroachments. To facilitate the removal, Jackson induced Congress in 1830 to pass a bill empowering him to lay off new Indian homelands west of the Mississippi. By the end of his presidency, Jackson's administration had negotiated almost 70 removal treaties, leading to the relocation of nearly 50,000 eastern Indians and the expansion of slavery. This episode is known as the "Trail of Tears".
Andrew Jackson did not ignore a Supreme Court ruling as there was no ruling that laid an enforcement act. However, Jackson ignored the Supreme Court by pressuring Georgia's Governor to pardon men convicted under a law in question, removing the constitutional clash from Georgia.
