Chapter+7

Do now itskind of the same we do still have celebration there are now probably like more separate celebrations also the are fireworks now 3/4/11



Do now: The bank was to regulate bank all around the country. They thought that it only benifited rich people in the north. The constitution didn't that say they could do this His opponents created a bill to make a new charter for the bank. It was made into just another regular bank. people against jackson might be a dream fighting people agaist jackson he is running in other direction || __States' rights__ __Belief that the power of the states should be greater than the power of the federal goverment.__ I think more power should be given to the federal goverment because they should cosider themselves as whole. What examples can you think of that involve the concept of states' rights? What can states control that the federal government does not. one exapmlein the driving law and gay marrige. the states have the right to tax people and driving age.
 * What was the purpose of the bank?
 * Why did Jackson oppose the Second Bank of the United States?
 * What did Jackson's opponents do to hurt his chances of being re-elected as president?
 * What did the Second Bank of the United States become after Jackson's second term as president?
 * I see || It means ||
 * * two men
 * a monster
 * a bed
 * The men look like they are fighting dof the monster
 * one of the guys looks like he is injured || jackson and someone else
 * Do you favor giving more power to the states or to the federal government? Why?

__What path led to Andrew Jackson�s presidency?__ Jackson was in the army during the revolutionary war. Later one he was he practiced law and worked in goverment offices. Then he went back to the army and fought in the battle of new orleans. __How did the Indian Removal Act lead to the Trail of Tears?__ The Indian Removal Act lead to the trail of tears because the indians didn't want to leave their home so they had to be removed from them. __Why was the national bank a source of controversy?__ Because Jackson didn't a bank that ruled all the others but some people did want it.So they ended up fighting over it but in the Jackson ended up winning. Sovereignty-having athourity over an area (geographically) State sovereignty-states have the right to prevent the application of programsand regulations of the federal goverment 1818- congress passes tariff on british on British goods-tariff is raised in 1824 1828 North :D- industrialized;want all Americans to buy American goods South :( - agricultural forced top buy more expensive american goods (british goods cheaper) John Calhon (vice president) - states that any state any state could nullify or reject any law passed by congress(i.e. tariff) law that the state thought violated the constitution or was not in best intrests of state. Nulliification theory : concept that states have the right to reject federal law **__Homework 3/17/11__**   <span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-repeat: no-repeat; display: block; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">4/1//11 Do now : <span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-repeat: no-repeat; display: block; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">You come up with with topics the find details to support it. I find diffrent topics that have to do with the main idea then see what details i can find. <span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-repeat: no-repeat; display: block; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">introduce topic <span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-repeat: no-repeat; display: block; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">brianstorm <span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-repeat: no-repeat; display: block; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">engaging opening <span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-repeat: no-repeat; display: block; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">thesis <span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-repeat: no-repeat; display: block; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">get to the point <span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-repeat: no-repeat; display: block; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;"> 1) Is Andrew Jackson's policy of Indian removal a responsible effort for the benefit of all or is the policy a violation of the Constitution?

Purpose to figure out weather the Indian Rewmoval act was against the constitution. <span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-repeat: no-repeat; display: block; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Audiance the teachers. <span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-repeat: no-repeat; display: block; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Brainstorming <span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-repeat: no-repeat; display: block; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Benefits Violation of the constitution
 * <span style="background-attachment: scroll; background-repeat: no-repeat; display: block; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">i was a benefit becuase it prevented the from argueing over many minor things.
 * it also benefited them by the amricans got more land in the south
 * more land ment more farms and crops
 * america grew in size and econimically
 * americans probaly found new resouses they probably didnt have before so did the indians
 * more more trade routes
 * not really becuase they are not american citizens or forgin contry
 * since they are notr american citizens jackson didnt have the right to kick them out of thier homes

homework 4/3/11