Jackson

OBJECTIVE: SWBAT Define and Evaluate **nullification** in the conflict over States' Rights.
**Do now: 4/8/11** **Under what circumstances, if any, can a State reject a Federal Law? Why do you say this?** I think that when a State can reject a Federal Law is that a Federal Law goes against the State's belief. Different states have different type of people so the laws might not apply to that state. States have the right to make laws that benefit or help the people.

__**The Hayne-Webster Debate**__
__**Who:**__ Senator Robert Hayne from South Carolina and Daniel Webster from Massachusetts **__What:__** It was a debate if states have the right to nullify federal laws. An argument about nullification and states' laws. __**When:**__ 1830 **__Where__**: Congress, Senate **__Why:__** This was significant because this debate argues if a state has the rights to reject federal laws because they believe that if they reject the federal laws it would be a violation of the Constitution. Senator Hayne believed that states have the right to nullification federal laws. Senator Webster believed that states does not have the power to nullification any federal laws.

**__Summary:__** The __Hayne-Webster Debate__ was an argument about the states having the right to __nullify__ federal laws or not. Senator Robert Hayne was on the states' side and believed that the states have all the rights to nullify federal laws. Against Senator Hayne was Senator Daniel Webster, Senator Webster believed that they're a union so states should not be nullifying laws. If states were nullifying laws then only some states would have that law, this would be sectionalism. My opinion did not change, I believed that states should have the rights to nullify a federal law. Like abortion laws, some states agree to it and some doesn't, so some states should be able to nullify abortion laws. I believe that nullification is warrent only under certain circumstances because I think you can ben the rule sometimes like the elastic clause.


 * 4/12/11**

People are willing to fight for him. They will come when Jackson needs them. They will be ready to defend Jackson. 2.**Analyze** In the song, southern men are depicted as favoring nullification. What lines in the song express the opposite view? We Jackson boys will quickly come, And be with our rifles handy. Jackson is being compared to kings in Europe. The cartoonist's POV is that he doesn't like Jackson. You can clearly see that the artist was comparing Jackson to the kings in Europe, where they had absolute power and they did not ask for the citizens' opinions. The cartoonist wrote on the cartoon saying "Had I been consulted" infering that did Jackson asked for the people's opinions.
 * DOCUMENT 1 TASKS:**
 * 1. Identify.** Refer to Document 1. According to the song, what were the people willing to do to show their support for Jackson?
 * DOCUMENT 2 TASKS:**
 * 1. Identify.** Refer to Document 2. To whom is Jackson being compared in this image?
 * 2. Elaborate** What do you think was the cartoonist's Point of View? Explain your answer.

The cartoonist seem to support Jackson. I think Nicholas Biddle is shown as the biggest head of the hydra because Jackson and him probably had many conflicts. Or Jaskson doesn't like the National Bank so he veto most of the bills that benefit the bank.
 * DOCUMENT 3 TASKS:**
 * 1. Identify** Refer to Document 3. Who does the cartoonist seem to support in this image?
 * 2. Interpret** Why do you think Nicholas Biddle is shown as the biggest head of the hydra?
 * 3.** Complete the APPARTS Chart on Document. On the bottom of the chart, Identify the artist's Point of View.


 * Document-Based Essay:**
 * Consider the question below, AND your original postition you answered for the Do Now.
 * F**orm a thesis statement**. (Should be in your wiki)
 * Using **evidence** from Documents 1, 2, and 3, **create an outline of a short essay.**(Should be in your wiki)
 * **Write a short essay** supporting your position. (Attach to your wiki)


 * Question: How did Andrew Jackson change the power of the presidency? AND was this justified according to the Constitution?**