jackson impeachment
Jackson Impeachment Case Indictment 1
Pro:
According to the prosecutor Andrew Jackson should be impeached because he has violated the separation of powers in his actions to destroy the Bank of the United States. To support this accusation the prosecutor might point out how vetoing the renewal the charter of the Bank, being an already established bank, infringed on the power of the judicial branch. For example, the recharter bill was accepted by congress but vetoed by Jackson declaring the bank unconstitutional. But earlier, the Supreme Court declared it constitutional in the McCulloch v. Maryland case, but Jackson acted as though he regarded the executive superior to the judicial. His veto message also implied that if the executive and legislative branches were partners in the government, that the president was the superior partner.
Con:
On the defendant side, Andrew Jackson is a hero saving us from the takeover of the national bank. First off, the Bank of the United States was a private institution accountable only to its elite circle of investors so in essence, the veto of the recharter did not infringe on the separation of powers. In the Tony D'Urso essay on the bank war he explains how since the bank had no higher entity to answer to, in time the power over the nation’s financial affairs would have enabled the bank to wield a great deal of political power. To some the bank seemed to go against the egalitarian credo of American Democracy. To Andrew Jackson, the bank was a monopoly where most of the stock was held by foreigners and in his veto message he states that his veto saved the government from evil and corruption.
Side:
As a member of the house panel I have chosen to side with the defendant side in opposition to Jackson’s impeachment. Without Jackson’s veto to the renewal of the charter of the Bank of the United States, the bank would become abundant with power and eventually overtake the government and
Pro:
According to the prosecutor Andrew Jackson should be impeached because he has violated the separation of powers in his actions to destroy the Bank of the United States. To support this accusation the prosecutor might point out how vetoing the renewal the charter of the Bank, being an already established bank, infringed on the power of the judicial branch. For example, the recharter bill was accepted by congress but vetoed by Jackson declaring the bank unconstitutional. But earlier, the Supreme Court declared it constitutional in the McCulloch v. Maryland case, but Jackson acted as though he regarded the executive superior to the judicial. His veto message also implied that if the executive and legislative branches were partners in the government, that the president was the superior partner.
Con:
On the defendant side, Andrew Jackson is a hero saving us from the takeover of the national bank. First off, the Bank of the United States was a private institution accountable only to its elite circle of investors so in essence, the veto of the recharter did not infringe on the separation of powers. In the Tony D'Urso essay on the bank war he explains how since the bank had no higher entity to answer to, in time the power over the nation’s financial affairs would have enabled the bank to wield a great deal of political power. To some the bank seemed to go against the egalitarian credo of American Democracy. To Andrew Jackson, the bank was a monopoly where most of the stock was held by foreigners and in his veto message he states that his veto saved the government from evil and corruption.
Side:
As a member of the house panel I have chosen to side with the defendant side in opposition to Jackson’s impeachment. Without Jackson’s veto to the renewal of the charter of the Bank of the United States, the bank would become abundant with power and eventually overtake the government and