Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, today I stand before you to discuss whether the defendant's, my client, President

Andrew Jackson's, actions during his presidency, 1829-1837, were justified, which by the end of this case you will come to the conclusion that not only was he innocent, but his actions proved beneficial, were logical, and of course justified. To begin with, this court case has come down to two main points, the "weakening of the constitution" through expansion of presidential power, and the genocide of Indians. There follows two subpoints for charge one and these fall under the category of, the veto of the National Bank and the Force Bill of 1833. Throughout this trial, the defense will effectively prove the necessary justification as the removal of the national bank with words from Jackson himself as to his reason for taking these drastic measures and citing evidence. For instance, the premise for vetoing the national bank according to his document titled "Bank Veto (July 10, 1832)" was that it increase economic instability, served as a monopoly on a fiscal policy, did not answer with anyone in government, and lastly forced many of them into bankruptcy. Now I would like to bring up a hindsight reference, where the "pet banks" led to Panic of 1837, aside from the one time of paying of their debt, the National Bank has been unable to repay its debt since this time and has only exponentially increased its debt. Whereas smaller state banks act like firms in a market, increased competition means increased benefit for consumers and therefore would result in not as bad as an economic fallout. Lastly, Jefferson one of the most notable founding fathers of this country concurs with Mr. Jackson in the unconstitutionality of the National Bank, declaring it is a monopoly, utilizes alien subscribers, and does not provide to the general welfare of the people. Next, it is Jackson's duty as President to preserve the union and this will be made transparent as we approach the Force Bill, with not only evidence from the Constitution, the actual Force Bill and lastly testimony from the defense himself. When a president takes oath into presidency what are the words that he says that assures he will preserve the Union, quite simply it is the following that they have the duty to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Next the Force Bill was enacted and passed by Congress which not only meant it was

with majority consent but as well as necessary to maintain the Union, this was under the jurisdiction of Section 1 and 5 of the Force Bill which state that if an ordinary course is too great to overcome with judicial decision, that force is necessary to maintain the assemblage of the United States. On to charge number 2, genocide, the "destruction of Native American cultures was merely a byproduct of Mr. Jackson's intent. This intent was to remove them and allow people to expand to places where Indians previously occupied. If we are going to talk about byproducts, then one can bring up the future success of Manifest Destiny as a result of usable land due to genocide, and the establishing of the transcontinental railroad and etc. But if we will refer to my burden later on, then Jackson had not ill intent to destroy and massacre the natives but rather exile them or force them to have a mass exodus away from American land in order for it to be able to settled by actual U.S. citizens. With this in mind, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I would like you to consider that Mr. Jackson embodies the people, he was a log cabin boy, an orphan, a self made man who came up from nothing, and lastly someone the people of America respect, trust, and know will get the job done using any means necessary. Hopefully at the end of this trial, the jury and the judge will arrive at the conclusion that Jackson is indeed a sound man, whose actions clearly benefitted the entirety of society rather than him abusing his own power. Furthermore, the defense would like to offer the following burden of proof to the prosecution side. The plaintiff has the duty to prove the burden that not only were Andrew Jackson's actions unconstitutional but did not strictly benefit the people, and that aftermaths due to these actions should not be considered as anyone who made an action would not look to quantum leaps in time to consider the result of one's actions. Succinctly put, unintended consequences should be weighed less or completely disregarded, than the purpose of the action. Secondly, if they reference the constitution, they must strictly prove that Jacksons actions were not made with the priority of the consent of the governed. This burden comes from the fact that this nation was founded upon the Declaration of Independence and Constitution which states that the government derives its power from the consent

of the governed, meaning at its roots, the people. The next burden is in regards to the second burden, that the opposition must prove that states rights and states ideals take precedent over the desire of man. If they cannot prove all the stated burdens then we assume that their arguments fall and that this trial is won by the defense. With all this in mind, the defense rests your honor.