Federal+Authority+and+Its+Opponents+-+F

= Federal Authority and its Opponents = = ** ✯✯✯ ** = =**** =

= = =Hi, everyone!= =I hope everyone is enjoying the unexpected break. Since, our group will not get a chance to perform our lesson, we instead recorded our voice with instructions of the activity as well as the lecture. If you have any questions, feel free to email us.= =hannakim47@gmail.com= = = =monicasuh5@gmail.com= = =  =OBJECTIVES= This section under “ Federal Authority and its Opponents” covers a wide range of topics under a unified theme. The below are objectives under each section.

-Students should be able to identify the proponents and opponents of extended federal authority. -Students should be able to apply different issues stated below including slavery, national bank and know how these disputes all came back to the idea of state power VS federal authority
 * BROAD OBJECTIVES:**


 * SPECIFIC OBJECTS UNDER EACH SECTION: **

**Supreme Court Cases [PG 271-272]** -Students will be able to identify the role of a supreme court during the Monroe administration and Marshall’s contribution to the system. -Students will be capable of analyzing the constitution’s role in the Supreme Court, which includes the extent of judicial power in relation to state legislatures -Students will be able to use examples of Marshall’s rulings in different judicial cases to see how the role of federal government was strengthened.

-Students will be able to identify the difference between Southern and Northern Democrat’s opinion toward the idea of “popular sovereignty” -Students should know what each side of the debate believed about the rules set by the federal government in relation to state legislature’s power of deciding legitimacy of slavery -Students should be able to identify the conflicting viewpoints over the Bank’s re-charter and the effect that it had on the election of 1832. -Students should be able to evaluate the strategy Jackson used in “killing the Bank” and his idea of creating state banks as replacements.
 * Popular Sovereignty [PG 390-392]**
 * National Bank and the Bank Veto [PG 294-295]**

[|Gibbons v Ogden] [|McCulloch v Maryland] [|Dartmouth College v Woodward]  = Outline of Lesson =

1. Hand out Bellwork. (This would be the primary document regarding the Supreme Court Case //McCulloch v. Maryland//) Give the class time to read and a chance to analyze the primary documents to their best abilities. (5 minutes)

2. Lead into the trial activity on the Supreme court Case //McCulloch v. Maryland//. (10 minutes)

3. Explanation of trial activity and relate this back to the other Supreme Court Cases. (5 minutes)

4. Continuation of powerpoint lecture and cover the remaining points of popular sovereignty and the National Bank. (10 minutes)

5. Do the toondoo activity [2-3 min]

6. End the lecture with tariff of 1828.


 * POP Questions along the lecture! : )

=OUR LECTURE [WITH OUR VOICES RECORDED!]=

We have put up the script of it instead, but basically the main points are explained in the powerpoint.
 * Due to a certain circumstance and technical difficulties, the recorded version of our keynote is not available.

__**SCRIPT:**__ Hey guys, this is Hanna and Monica. And today’s lecture topic is federalism and its opponents.

Today’s lesson objectives are rather simple. First, we want you to be able to identify the proponents and opponents of THE federal authority. Second, we want you able to apply different issues such as slavery, national bank and know how these disputes came back to the idea of federal authority vs state’s rights.
 * HANNA:**

Let’s start off with a 5-min bellwork. If you click the link below, there is an excerpt of a primary document. Read it individually and start thinking about who’s speaking in this document and the speaker’s main arguments. We are purposely not giving you much information, so do not panic even if some of the parts are not clear.

Supreme Court Cases Let me provide you some background on the primary document and the follow up activity.

In 1791, the first bank of the United States was established. At this time, purpose of the bank was targeted for government funds, collecting taxes and issuing currency. However, after the war of 1812, James Madison re-chartered the bank. Therefore, in 1816, the Second bank of United States was formed. This charter approved branches of the bank to be established in the individual states. This decision of Madison brought much controversy between the federalist and the republicans. The federalist believed that the bank was necessary for a strong federal government. While, the republicans believed that it was undermining state’s power. These debates were demonstrated even after Madison’s presidency. Much of this debate can be seen in the rulings of Marshall throughout his trial cases.

However, before we go in more into Marshall and his rulings, we want to do a quick activity. As you guys hopefully noticed, the primary document you read is relevant to the case of State of Maryland VS McCulloch. The speaker of the document was judge john marshall. Today, we want you and your group to reenact the rulings of John Marshall. We want your group to listen to the arguments of the both sides from the video we prepared and rule in one side’s favor based on the primary document. After the watching the video, we want your group to get ready for a judge’s statement that specially states who wins in the trial and detailed reason. The group who gives the closest ruling with Marshall will win a prize! We will watch the video and will give you 5 min to discuss as a group. Then you will present your judge’s ruling statement!

OK. Great job on the activity. Now, let’s see specifically what happened in the real trial. Perhaps, we should provide with the background of the supreme court. While Monroe administration was trying to reconcile sectionalism as we learned in Sejin and Chris lecture, the supreme court made many contributions to the growth of the federal government. This mainly due to the John Marshall in this picture.

John Marshall was a federalist as well as nationalist. When I say Marshall was a nationalist, basically Marshall wanted America to develop economically as a whole, not individual states. Therefore, he used the constitution to clarify the role of federal government the role of the supreme court for the sake of the American society.

Marshall specifically believed the role of the court was foster economic growth of the nation against the efforts of legislatures to hinder with property rights of individuals for the sake of state-interest. Marshall made sure he demonstrated this belief of his in his court cases. And today we are going to look at the three most famous cases he presided over.

But, wait! Before, we go into the trial case, we need to familiarize ourselves with the term “contract clause.” Contract clause of the constitution basically stated that the state had to follow original charters of the company. More simply, state did not have the power to force private companies to conform to certain actions that are protected against in original charters. For example, if the original charter of my company states that that the company is private, thus cannot be interfered by state’s governance. State cannot interfere with company following the contract clause.

POP QUESTIION! JAEHO! What is the contract clause of the constitution?

Now, finally moving into the court cases. The first case was named “Dartmouth college vs wood ward 1819. Basically this trial was a case of New Hamshpire state vs Dartmouth college. The trial posed the key question of whether the state have the power to convert a private college into a state university. Woodward, the attorney of the college argued no saying that the original charter of the university was valid, thus the private ownership of the college cannot be undermined. Marshall ruled in the university’s favor based on the contract clause. The big picture of this trial was that it allowed modern company’s opportunity to economically grow was a profit making business without having to conform to the state’s intervention.

The second trial we are going to learn about today is what we demonstrated earlier in the lesson. McCulloch VS Maryland. Since, we already did the activity, we should know by now that the trial started off when state of Maryland charged the Baltimore branch of the bank of United States with an annual tax and a fine for failing to comply with state law. Two essential questions were asked in this trial. The first question was “did congress have the rights to establish a national bank? Marshall said yes to this question based on the idea of “implied powers.” He specifically said since the constitution odes not specifically state who has the power to charter a bank, federal authority should be granted authorization. To justify this, he explained that since federal government is designed for “great objects” of national affair, they should also be granted of this authorization. The second question was whether the state had the right to tax and regulate a federal agency. Marshall to this question said no, he argued that if the state had the power to tax a federal agency, it also granted the state the power to destroy the agency. He asserted that federal agency should be absolutely protected.

POP QUESTION! CLEMENS! Identify what the term "implied powers" means.

POP QUESTION! CHRIS! What were the two main arguments used by McCulloch and his attorney Daniel Webster, in the Supreme Court Case McCulloch v. Maryland?

The last trial was Gibbons VS Ogden. The issue of this trial was mainly revolving the issue of interstate commerce. During this trial, Ogden, representing New York, went against the ferry service operating between new york and new jersey, he argued that the state should be granted of the right to control the ferry’s admission to the state. Listening to this statement, Marshall ruled that Ogden’s argument was unconstitutional because congress had the exclusive right to control instate commerce.

POP QUESTION! DANIEL! Briefly explain the Gibbons v. Ogden Supreme Court Case.

So, let’s SUM this UP! This is the dual effect of Marshall. First, it broadened the power for federal government, while diminishing state’s power. Second, it encouraged the growth of market economy.

POP QUESTION! PAUL! Who was the chief justice in the Supreme Court Cases and what were the two "dual effects" of his judging?

POP QUESTION! JENN! Name one of the Supreme Court Cases and briefly identify what the main conflict was of that case.

So, now we will transition to a new topic!
 * MONICA:**

A New Proposal: The idea of popular sovereignty. “Squatter sovereignty” - This would determine the status of slavery in a territory to the actual settlers of that land. Constitution gave federal government of the right to abolish international slave trade, but it did not grant the government of the power to abolish already existent slavery in states or the slavery institutions of future states. Prior to this, how a state was decided whether it was pro or anti-slavery was mainly based on the physical location of that state in regard to the 36’30 line. From the beginning, this proposal contained an ambiguity that allowed it to be interpreted differently in the North and South.

POP QUESTION! SEJIN! Prior to the proposal of popular sovereignty, how did Americans decide to set the standard to which states would be pro-slavery and which states would ban it?

The North versus the South: Northern Democrats: popular sovereignty meant that states of western territories can decide by themselves rather they want to abolish slaves by popular vote of the citizens. Southern Wing: meant that a decision would be made only at the time a convention drew up a constitution and applied for statehood. So how does this relate back to our objective? The idea of “popular sovereignty” overall decreased the power of federal authority. By giving the state the right to decide (rather it is by legislature or popular vote), it increased state’s rights and decreased the power of federal authortiy.

POP QUESTION! DONGJU! What is popular sovereignty?

Now, let's move onto a another topic. If you take a look at this political cartoon, you can see that there is this man who is fighting against a monster-like serpent. The man portrayed here is President Andrew Jackson and the monster-like serpent is the "monster bank." In this cartoon Jackson tell Martin Van Buren, "The Bank is trying to kill me, but I will kill it!" So let's move on to the next slide to see what Jackson meant by this. The Second Bank of the United States was authorized for a twenty year period during James Madison's tenure in 1816. As President, Jackson worked to repeal the bank's federal charter. So, In 1832, Jackson vetoed the Second Bank of the United State's charter. In his veto message, Jackson stated the reasons why the bank needed to be abolished... First of all, Jackon stated that the bank concentrated the nation’s financial strength in a single institution, which consisted of people of high status and wealth. He believed the government could not constitutionally create such a bank and that favored the wealthy over the common people. The bank would serve to make the rich even richer. Therefore, it would favor the northeastern states over the southern and western states. Jackson also argued extensively that the Bank was unconstitutional and that it was neither "necessary" nor "proper" for the federal government to authorize and permit the existence of an institution so big and so powerful that only directly benefited a privileged few. Jackson thus challenged the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States, which had held consistently that the Bank was constitutional.

POP QUESTION! STEVEN! Name one reason why Jackson thought the Bank of United States had to be abolished? (Listed in the veto bill)

Jackson's Bank veto was significant, since it firmly inserted the President into the legislative process. Jackson vetoed the Bank bill not only for constitutional reasons, but also for political reasons. Previous Presidents had used the veto sparingly, only when they felt a law was unconstitutional. Jackson did not acquiesce in the Supreme Court's ruling that the Bank was constitutional; he challenged it head on. He also pointed to many non-constitutional issues in his message, which was new. Jackson's rhetoric of celebrating the role of the small farmer, the working man, and the middling artisan was also significant, since it has come to define Jacksonian Democracy for many historians. It was also a source of Jackson's broad-based appeal, which secured his reelection later in 1832.

Killing the Bank... Not content with preventing the Bank from getting a new charter, Jackson resolved to attack it directly by removing federal deposits from Biddle’s vaults. To remove the deposits from the Bank, Jackson had to overcome a strong resistance in his own Cabinet. People within his Cabinet who failed to support him were either replaced or shifted positions. Earlier Jackson had suggested that the government keep its money in a some kind of public bank, but never made a specific proposal to Congress. The problem of how to dispose the funds was resolved by placing them in selected state banks. By the end of 1833, 23 banks had been chosen as depositories. Opponents argued that the banks had been selected for political rather than fiscal reasons and label them to be Jackson’s “pet banks.”

POP QUESTION! JOODI! What happened to those who disagreed with Jackson's plan of removing deposits from the Bank?

Actions that Congress took... Congress refused to approve administration proposals to regulate the credit policies of such banks. Strong opposition to Jackson’s fiscal policies developed in Congress. Henry Clay states that the president has violated the Bank’s charter and exceeded his constitutional authority in removing the deposits. Eventually he persuaded the Senate to approve of motion of censure. Some congressmen who defended Jackson’s veto thought that he went too far in asserting the powers of his office.

POP QUESTION! ALBERT! How did Congress react to Jackson's bank veto?

So once again, how does this relate back to our objective? Basically, Jackson during his presidency wanted to increase state’s power, but to an extent that it will not hurt the federal authority. [Remember that Jackson was against aristocrats, but showed signs of both federalist and republican ideas]. But ironically by killing the bank, he severely decreased federal government’s extent of power.

Now it's time for our toondoo activity! It’s time for you to apply your knowledge! We have a cartoon strip with blank bubbles. Creatively fill in the bubbles based on the lesson. Remember... • What would have Jackson said? • Why did Jackson veto the Bank re-charter? • Don't forget to look over the reflection questions and see how accurate your answer was!

Now, to the last topic! The last topic we are going to talk about is the tariff crisis, nullification crisis. The tariff crisis arose in 1828 when the congress passed the tariff of abominations. This tariff set duties on imports at almost 50%. President Jackson didn’t lke this idea, but he pushed the tariff anyway before his election to discredit his opponent Adams. Jackson’s scheme backfired he became the president.
 * HANNA:**

POP QUESTION! JENNIFER! What was the major controversy that took place in 1828?

The tariff of abominations faced a lot of opponents. One of the opponents was vice president John Calhoun. He encouraged his home state South Carolina to nullify the law. Shall we read the primary document of his speech and find out what his main arguments were. As you can see from the document, John Calhoun argued that the tariff of abominations was unconstitutional because since states created the central federal government, they should be granted greater power.

POP QUESTION! JONATHAN! How did Vice President John Calhoun react to the the Tariff Controversy?

But it wasn’t only John Calhoun who opposed the tax. Most of the southern states detested its tax for it diminished their economic profits. However, it’s important for us to not that even though the tariff of abominations faced a lot of oppositions, it did help the government to pay off its debt. With federal finance stabilized, Jackson signed the tariff 1812 with a lower tariff to appease the people. But the southern states still weren’t satisfied. The dissatisfaction led the legislators of South Carolina to declare tariff null and asserted they will cede Jackson if he tries to impose the tariff. President Jackson was obviously outraged by this and issued the nullification proclamation and denied any state’s rights to nullify federal laws.
 * MONICA:**

POP QUESTION! MR. WOOD! What was the state that opposed the Tariff Bill?

Now that we have covered up all our topics, how about we go back to lesson objectives. Let’s discuss these questions....

=MAIN ACTIVITIES [EXTENDED EXPLANATION DUE TO SCHOOL SHUT-DOWN]=

1) TRIAL ACTIVITY:

Today we will reenact one of these famous court cases: State of //Maryland VS McCulloch.// You and your group as a whole will be playing the role of John Marshall. You are to listen to the two side’s argument and judge in one side’s favor based on the primary document. The group who correctly interprets the primary document and makes the right call will win a PRIZE. :)

Background Info: The case of McCulloch v. Maryland arose because the state of Maryland had levied a tax on the Baltimore branch of the United States. The unanimous opinion of the Court, delivered by Marshall was that the Maryland tax was unconstitutional. The two main issues were whether Congress had the right to establish a national bank and whether a state had the power to tax or regulate an agency or institution created by Congress.

media type="youtube" key="cvrRvI49b2c" height="340" width="560"

After watching the video/trial below, we are guessing that a majority of you agreed with Luter Martin and defended the state of Maryland’s proposition. However, in the actual trial, Marshall called the shots and despite the fact that Daniel Webster and his client McCulloch had much less evidence to support their argument, in the end Marshall’s judging gave McCulloch the leading victory in court. The reason to this judgment was because Marshall set forth his doctrine of “implied powers” in answer to the first question. Concluding that no specific authorization to charter a bank could be found in the Constitution, the chief justice argued that such a right could be deduced from more general powers and from an understanding of the great from which the federal government had been founded. Marshall was a supporter for loose construction of the Constitution and a broad grant of power to the federal government to encourage economic growth and stability. In answer to the second question, the right of a state to tax or regulate a federal agency, Marshall held that the Bank was indeed such an agency and that giving the state the power to tax it would also give the states the power to destroy it. Therefore, no matter how strong of a proposition Martin had, there would have been a very small chance that the would have won this case because of Marshall’s belief that a state attacking the federal government is unconstitutional.

Reflection Questions: So how did you do on this trial? Was your judgment along the lines of Marshall's judgment?

2) TOONDOO ACTIVITY

Read the Toondoo Cartoon below and in the blank caption bubbles creatively fill in them in according to the lesson and what we learned about Jackson. Remember, 'What would Jackson have said?' and 'Why did Jackson veto the Bank re-charter?' The answers to the blanks are explained by the boy.



3) POP QUIZ (PQs) There were short PQ Questions mentioned in during the presentation. Here are all the questions and the answers to them if you weren't able to answer the questions or wanted to check just in case! Sorry about that and question #10 is for Albert! :)
 * By the way, sorry Albert and Paul! It seems that Paul was asked again during the presentation when Albert was supposed to be asked.

1. What is the contract clause of the constitution? JAEHO

ANS: Contract clause of the constitution stated that the state had to follow the original charters of different institutions. In addition to this, State doesn’t have the power to influence corporations’ rights stated in original charters.

2. Identify what the term "implied powers" means. CLEMENS

ANS: Constitution does include who has the power to charter the bank, so federal authority, an institution designed for “great objects” should be granted of authorization.

3. What were the two main arguments used by McCulloch and his attorney Daniel Webster, in the Supreme Court Case //McCulloch v. Maryland//? CHRIS Hint: One had to do with the loose interpretation of the Constitution.

ANS: Implied powers of government, could not give Maryland the power to tax federal because that would lead to a corrupt government later. Another argument was the loose interpretation of the Constitution.

4. Briefly explain the //Gibbons v. Ogden Supreme// Court Case. DANIEL

ANS: It was on the issue of interstate commerce. New York (Ogden) went against the ferry service operating between NY and NJ, claiming that state had the right to control ferry’s admission to the state.

5. Who was the chief justice in the Supreme Court Cases and what were the two "dual effects" of his judging? PAUL

ANS: John Marshall; broadened the power of federal government and encouraged the growth of market economy.

6. Name one of the Supreme Court Cases and briefly identify what the main conflict was of that case. JENN

ANS: Answers will vary, but the three major court cases we covered were: 1. //Dartmouth v. Woodward// 2. //McCulloch v. Maryland// 3. //Gibbons v. Ogden//

7. Prior to the proposal of popular sovereignty, how did Americans decide to set the standard to which states would be pro-slavery and which states would ban it? SEJIN

ANS: The physical location according to the 36' 30 line.

8. What is popular sovereignty? DONGJU

ANS: Issue of slavery where that territory depends on the say of the settlers.

9. Name one reason why Jackson thought the Bank of United States had to be abolished? (Listed in the veto bill) STEVEN

ANS: Answers will vary but these are possible answers. • It concentrated the nation's financial strength in a single institution. • It exposed the government to control by foreign interests. • It served mainly to make the rich richer. • It favored northeastern states over southern and western states.

10. How did Congress react to Jackson's bank veto? ALBERT

ANS: They were not in favor of Jackson's veto. Congress had actually passed the re-charter of Bank of America.

11. What happened to those who disagreed with Jackson's plan of removing deposits from the Bank? JOODI

ANS: They were either removed form the Cabinet or were repositioned.

12. What was the major controversy that took place in 1828? JENNIFER

ANS: The Tariff Controversy of 1828

13, How did Vice President John Calhoun react to the the Tariff Controversy? JONATHAN

ANS: He opposed the tariff and encouraged his home state (South Carolina) to nullify the law.

14. What was the state that opposed the Tariff Bill? MR.WOOD

ANS: South Carolina

4) CLASS DISCUSSION on the Primary Document -We can't really do this activity but it was mainly analyzing the primary document and coming to a conclusion of what Calhoun's argument concerning the Tariff Controversy and how South Carolina should act.