Due to the evidence presented during the impeachment trial of President Andrew Jackson, I think that he should be impeached. His actions in the instances of the second bank of the United States were not unconstitutional but the actions against the Native Americans however were. Although he believed his acts were in the interest of the American people, I can not believe so.
The second bank of the United States was founded in 1816, five years after the expiration of the First Bank of the United States and the chaos that ensued. The legality of the Bank was upheld in the 1819 Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland which also declared null and void any state law contrary to a federal law made in pursuance of the Constitution. However, Andrew Jackson vetoed renewal of the Second Bank of the United States on July 10, 1832. The defense presented that he did so because he believed it to be best for the democracy and people of the United States. He believed the bank to be a monopoly, which was for the good of the higher classes, mostly to the east. His veto of the bill to re-charter the bank of the United States was not unconstitutional, congress could have gotten a two- thirds vote to stop the veto, but they did not; Therefore his actions were not unconstitutional but were for his own personal reasons.
However, his decisions involving Georgia and the Native Americans were unconstitutional. He ignored the constitution when he allowed Georgia to go against the right of the Natives and remove them from their own land. The Cherokee in Georgia had received recognition of their semiautonomous status in a federal treaty in 1791. They had become farmers, ranchers and cotton producers. They developed their own constitution, built roads and churches, developed a successful educational system and owned slaves. The Cherokee refused all inducements to sell their highly prized and very fertile lands.

Post Author: admin


I'm Irvin!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out