Andrew Jackson and John Marshall - Essay Example

Andrew Jackson and John Marshall Introduction Andrew Jackson was U.S. seventh elect president. He was voted in as president due to his achievements. Jackson was an army General and a politician. He dominated in the creation of Modern Democratic Party. He had an aggressive and a tough personality that enabled him to face his opponents; he always fought for what he termed as undemocratic aristocracy. After his election as president, Jackson’s power increased, and he became partial supporter of some state rights.

Jackson was a delegate of the Tennessee constitution review. On the other hand, John Marshall was a U.S. chief justice whose opinions assisted in laying the U.S. constitution.Jackson’s and Marshall’s ViewpointsMarshall as chief justice, did not rely in any way on other people’s opinion, but believed that the law should guide his ruling. He steered his justices and only one time did he appear on the losing side in a case involving the constitution. He had set his own standards of constitution interpretation.

In the Marbury v. Madison case, Marshall was of the opinion that the case violated the constitution by trying to expand the original and existing jurisdiction of the highest court. In this case, Marshall ruled it unconstitutional. This case made the Marshall proclaim the doctrine of review of the judiciary. In the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, which involved balancing of powers between the states and the federal government, Marshall ruled on federal supremacy. Marshall was of the opinion that states were not liable of taxing federal institutions.

He prevented the states from establishing laws that would violate the federal law. Marshall upheld the congressional authority in creating a second bank of U.S, though the powers to govern this were not stated in the constitution expressly. In Worcester v. Georgia, a Georgia statute prohibited those who were not Indians from being present on Indian lands without having a license of doing so from the state. In this case, Marshall ruled it unconstitutional under the ground that the federal government had exclusive authority in dealing with such matters.

It is believed that, in this ruling, Andrew Jackson was not happy about the ruling of Marshall and looked forward to seeing whether the ruling would be implemented, but it was at the very end and Worcester was freed.Andrew Jackson is seen as one of the presidents who did not protect, preserve or defended the constitution. During his swearing in, he said the words, but did not seem to follow them as required. During the Worcester v. Georgia case, Marshall had ruled that the federal law should prevail and that the case was unconstitutional, but while acting, Jackson ignored Marshall’s ruling and declared war on Indians breaking an agreement between the Indians and Americans (Johnson 134).

The judicial powers had extended to cover the ruling on Worcester v. Georgia, but Jackson as president stepped them and refused to remove federal troops from Georgia. Jackson failed to defend and protect the constitution by not ensuring that Marshall’s decision was guarded and executed. Jackson vetoed the bill that proposed the renewal of the Bank’s charter. He advocated for a second bank of U.S, an argument that Marshall had dismissed in his ruling in the case McCulloch v. Maryland.From the two viewpoints of the constitution upholding, it is clear that Marshall and Jackson had different views of the constitution.

John Marshall always acted upon the constitutional provisions, but Andrew Jackson acted on his own viewpoint and did not seek the constitution for guidance.Work CitedJohnson, John. Griswold V. Connecticut (Landmark Law Cases & American Society). Boston: University Press of Kansas, 2005. Print.