The 7th US President Andrew Jackson
With Donald Trump in power, the United States is facing a “Andrew Jackson moment” (and this is bad news for the Constitution).
“How does it deal with a president who does not obey the Constitution?” Sean LangHistory Professor at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, in an article written in.
The question arose because the recent episode on which deportation flights that were carrying Venezuelans to (even if the court decided that these flights should not continue), indicates that “Donald Trump has a limited understanding of the separation of powers in the US”.
Underline: A President does not have the power to challenge a court order.
“Momento Andrew Jackson”
This is not the first time that a US administration has displayed a “Flagrant disrespect for constitutional procedures” – Aponta lang.
Also “populista Andrew Jackson” (US President between 1829 and 1837) a profound distrust of federal institutions.
Now, Trump echoes Jackson in many ways.
Just like Trump despises Joe BidenJackson also despised his predecessor, John Quincy Adams.
Trump’s attacks on institutions such as the Department of Education are the echo of Jackson’s extraordinary war to the United States Bank, which he considered “too great and great for a democratic people.”
But the parallels get closer to the forced expulsioneither from individuals, in the case of Trump, or from whole people, in the case of Jackson.
Trump – an echo from Jackson
In Jackson’s era, the Americans adopted a much more European lifestyle, founded cities, wore European clothes and even converted to Christianity.
But above all, they began to cultivate the earth to the point of having to work on it. They were known, in a very paternalistic way, such as the “Five civilized tribes”.
In 1828, the state of Georgia claimed jurisdiction on all lands of the five tribes. Jackson, an old “Indian combatant” and a convinced state rights southern, who was about to start his term as a seventh US president, clearly sympathized with the situation.
In his first speech on the state of the Union, Jackson made it very clear that he intended remove all “Indian” tribes to the desert lands west of Mississippi.
In Congress, Jackson’s opponents accused him of betraying his own principles in which the Republic had been founded. What had these people done that required their expulsion? And since they were actually farmers, why did their right to their own land be respected by law?
Despite these good reasons for these people to be allowed to stay, the 1830 removal law was passed and the peoples Chickasaw, Choctaw and Creek were forced to pack and from.
Os Seminole tried to resist armed, but were defeated.
Supreme Court vs Chairman
Os CherokeeIn turn, they took their case to the Supreme Court.
O US Supreme Court It had originally been conceived as a mere final appeal court. However, under the direction of its longtime president, John Marshallwas established as the supreme arbitrator of what was legal or not according to the Constitution. And that included acts of the president.
The newly discovered constitutional role of the court was deeply resentful in the White House as a unacceptable foray into the rights of the Presidenteven when I decided in your favor.
Now Marshall was being called upon to pronounce on the constitutional legality of Georgia’s claim on the lands of the Cherokee people.
The Cherokee had tried to declare that they were a totally independent state, but the court ruled against it.
However, considered that they were a US -dependent nation And that, therefore, the State of Georgia had no jurisdiction about them.
Georgia, however, simply ignored the Supreme Court And in 1838, he sent troops to gather and expel the Cherokee people.
About 13,000 people were forced from, in what became known as the “Tears Trail”.
About a third of them died of weakness, illness and hunger.
What is the constitution worth?
Jackson was ecstaticprovoking John Marshall that his decisions are stronger; and mock Marshall, because he has no means to enforce hers.
The Cherokee found that if the president decided to simply ignore her, the US Constitution did not offer any protection to innocent.
“It’s a history lesson that Gronelondes, Mexicans and Canadians – and, in fact, many Americans who may fall into disgrace with this administration and seek to resort to the law – would do well to study,” writes Sean Lang.
