Andrew Jackson: Power & Precedent

As a staunch Federalist, I believe that the presidency of Andrew Jackson exemplifies all that is befitting of an energetic president; his actions improved the efficiency of the government, increased the liberty held by the union's people, and strengthened the power of their voice. His belief that the power of government resides in the states and his enthusiasm for public support created a dichotomy in his actions: only through assertive executive leadership did he achieve a distribution of power to the people. This in itself assuages the Cato's argument for a weak central government- in order to spread more power among individuals and state governments, Jackson was forced to strengthen the power of the executive through his use of definitive proclamations and the veto.
When that Carolina decided to annul a federal statute, Jackson issued a strong proclamation that this was unacceptable.

Although many Cato's might argue that this was an example of monarchial tendencies, it was a necessary action to hold together the unity of the states and to prevent other states from annulling any law they didn't like. "A feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government." (Federalist 70:24) Had Jackson allowed South Carolina to succeed in nullifying the law it would have created a disconcerting precedent for other states, and would have torn apart the fragile unity of the states under the federal government. The government would have been branded incompetent and ineffective in carrying out or passing new legislation and the states ultimately could have easily separated to pursue their own agendas.