The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Did President Jackson violate the separation of powers in his actions to destroy the Bank of the US?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/5/2014 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,744 times Debate No: 64661
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




President Jackson violated the separation of powers in his actions to destroy the Bank of the United States. He vetoed the extensions of the 2nd national bank of the united states calling the bank "subversive of the rights of the states"
Andrew Jackson fought against: the bank and Nicholas biddle(president of the bank)


I accept the debate. Just to clarify, the burden of proof is on pro as he has made a positive claim, whilst I have not. Good luck to my opponent!
Debate Round No. 1


By abusing his power of veto, Andrew Jackson did become one of the worst president of the US. Veto the second Bank of the US, which rise the power of the executive branch.


Again, I would like to thank pro for initiating this debate. However, my opponent's arguments are full of holes.

Firstly, he claims that Andrew Jackson "abused the power of veto." However, he has provided absolutely no evidence that this is the case. Secondly, he claimed that Andrew Jackson was "one of the worst president (sic) of the U.S." Again, he provides no evidence at all. As the burden of proof falls on him, he has already failed.

Now, let's take a look at what the resolution states. The resolution is "President Jackson violated the separation of powers in his actions to destroy the Bank of the United States." The definition of separation of powers is "the principle or system of vesting in separate branches the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of a government." [1] Clearly, then, the standard by which we should judge the legitimacy of this claim is the document that vested these powers in the branches: the Constitution. According to the Constitution, the President is under no obligation to sign a bill; it is his power to veto a bill for any reason. [2] My opponent's argument makes no sense whatsoever. I hope he has a chance to actually make an argument next round.


Debate Round No. 2


koi1220 forfeited this round.


Vote con. It's not even close. I wanted to have a debate, but fate didn't cooperate. I hope everybody learned something.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Tweka 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: ff