1. Promote discussion, NOT simply summarize
2. Have original ideas (do not copy from other students or others)
3. Are presented cleanly and clearly. Pay particular attention to spelling, grammar, capitalization, and sentence structure. Proofread before you submit.
4. Are at least two paragraphs long (original thread) and one paragraph long (replies)
5. Are civil and respectful of other students and their opinions. Disagreement is fine, but it should be civil and not personal. If you abuse the discussion forum in any way, I will remove you from the discussion forums for the remainder of the course and you will lose those points.
1. Comment on the following document:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/ordnull.asp
What do you think of the idea that a state can/could invalidate a federal law that it (the state) considered unconstitutional?
About75 worlds
Reply three of them (pick any three and reply them) For example:I complete agree that everyone should have a say in a decision. That’s the idea of a democracy, right? I know this isn’t said in the document itself, but I believe it’s in reference to the Tariff of 1828. I may be wrong about the date so hopefully I’m not quoted on this. Anyway, the thing about America being a democratic state is that everyone did get a say! To an extent. But in order for congress to pass the Tariff, the house had to vote on it. I’m guessing the southern states voted against it, but the majority must have voted for, allowing the law to be passed in the first place. About 20 worlds each. Remember to state which you chose!
1. Hello! My name is Mya and I am happy to be here.
The document was confusing at first until I hit the topic sentence of the third paragraph, and did some research on vocabulary. But getting to the point, I really like the idea that a state can individually nullify a federal law because each state is unique in its own way. Be it personailty or in terms of business, the fact that a state can exempt itself from a federal law that they see is unconstitutional for their people really enforces the idea of democracy. Although I am not too sure what motives the state had in mind when nullifying the law that enforces taxation and duties on foriegn imports, I still support the extra say that states individually have that can potentially benefit its people. I am never really against the idea of having everyones say in a decision.
2.My name is Carissa and I am a Running Start student
I thought the document went against what the founding fathers wanted for our country. This document represents the view of some the states, instead of working together as one united place, they want to have their own rules and guidelines. These states want to work independently and act like their own little country with its own set of laws.
I think don’t think federal laws should be able to be overthrown just because a state does not like the law. Laws are made for a reason, they are not there just to make people unhappy or feel cornered. I’m sure not if all federal laws are the best, but they were created with reason in mind and with the thought of the general population. If one state overthrows a law, then other states might follow, which in my opinion is not a good thing to have happen. I think that states should think carefully to see if a federal law is really interfering with people’s daily lives before changing or overthrowing it.
3. Hi everyone,
My name is Chantal. In my opinion, I agree that a state can invalidate a federal law that it considered unconstitutional. It is because I think that the United States is a very big country, there are 50 states in total. Different states have different needs, the Federal law can not cover all the specific needs of different states comprehensively. So, I think Federal law is only generally good for the country, the state law is more specific to satisfy the real needs. Therefore, It is even better if the state invalidate a law that is not helping/ good for itself. I do agree that the government made the federal law to protect people; however, if the people disagree to that law, the law is meaningless. People know what they want and what is good for them, they won’t invalidate a law if it can bring benefits. Therefore, I think the state should have the right and power to invalidate a law according to its citizens’ need and wish.
4.Hello everyone,
My name is Kyoungsub Shin. I thought the document was confusing and State Laws and Federal Laws There are two types of laws in the US: federal and state laws. The individual states make most of the laws concerning sales taxes, education, speed limits so and on. There may be some conflicts between federal laws and state laws. Also, State officials sometimes pushed federal lawmakers to pass stricter environmental laws. For example, while draft laws are federal laws, marriage laws are state laws rather than federal; marriage regulations are therefore not uniform throughout the country. The legal marriage age serves as an example of this lack of conformity. In most states, both the man and the woman must be at least eighteen years old to marry without parental consent; however, the states of Nebraska and Wyoming require the coupld to be at least nineteen, while the minimum age in Mississippi is twenty-one. I think a state could invalidate a federal law that it considered unconstitutional.
5. Hello, my name is Erik. I am studying to be a pilot. The document was a harder read but it is good to know people in states don’t have to pay taxes that people pay in other states. Every state has their own way to make money. I think that a state should have a right to invalidate a federal law if it is voted on and people want that law out.
2. Watch the film “Andrew Jackson” (linked in the Week One Module), then discuss what stood out to you the most. A possible question to answer is: “What word would you use to describe Jackson?”
About100 worlds
Reply three of them (pick any three and reply them) For example: It is really heartbreaking that Jackson was responsible for the death of so many Native Americans, yet fascinating how he could prevail over his childhood to become a very important person in politics. Although he did support and give power to democracy, I feel like his mind was set more on “green envy” as one historian put it in the documentary. About 20 worlds each. Remember to state which you chose!
1. I watched the film the second day of the class. The first word that came to mind after I had finished was “unconventional.” I still think this word suits Andrew Jackson for many reasons. But I will get into that later. It’s Sunday now so I’ve had a few days to think. I rewetted the film and found a better word to describe him. It may be a simple and overused word but I still found myself landing on “selfish.”
Andrew Jackson was a people’s person. Regular, every day people viewed him as one of them. Mix that with his military status and you get a powerful person. Really Jackson was a celebrity. But then the best way to get attention as a celebrity was to become president. Yes he could fight for and with his people, but was he capable of all things a presidency calls for? Some say yes and some say no. I’d like to lean towards no, but of course we owe lots of things to his presidency. But if it had been my say back then, I would have voted against him.
Jackson was well-liked because of his relatable back ground. He was poor and angry just like the majority of Americans. On top of that he was an incredible military leader. This is all fine and dandy but popularity isn’t the only thing important about being president. America is a democratic state and Jackson was voted in by the people. The sad thing about it is he didn’t do what he did for the good of the people. He did it for himself. There is a system to a presidency so that the majority of the people are happy with the decisions made. Jackson didn’t care if people disagreed with him. He would follow through with his plans no matter what. He ruled the country as if he was still a militant leader. When I imagine Jackson, I imagine a puppet master. He had everyone wrapped around his little finger. He could do what he wanted and no one could stop him.
In conclusion, all I can see jackson as is selfish. He was obviously very influential, but it was his selfish ways that shaped America.
2. I found this film incredibly interesting! It was different than historical movies I have seen in the past because it really went in depth about who Andrew Jackson was a person. The interesting part about the movie was how the movie raised the question of if Andrew Jackson should be praised for what he did during his presidency or not because he did both positive and really negative things, which is a different approach than what I have seen in class movies in the past. Aspects of him were both negative and positive, such as he was extremely ambitious, but he was very into slavery during a time when it’s morality was being questioned. It was interesting how the movie described how others in his society saw him. They thought he was a good leader, although he was involved in a scandalous relationship with his wife, whom he met while she was married to another man.
3. This is my first time to watch Historical movie , and it makes me feel a little bit hard to understand and focus on it. Actually, I hadn’t studied American history before; Therefore, I need to know more about Andrew Jackson.
I would like to say Andrew Jackson was one of the most powerful and influential presidents of the nineteenth century. He was the idol of the American people because he has used all his time to America. I would like to say Andrew Jackson’s background stood me out in the movie since I could not believe he killed a man in a duel in 1806, over a matter of honor regarding his wife Rachel. Jackson gained national fame through his role in the War of 1812, most famously where he won a decisive victory over the main British invasion army at the Battle Of New Orleans. It is amazing. If you ask me what word would I use to describe him, I would say he is a victorious leader in the seventh as he was involved in many duels.
4. To be honest, historical films always amuse me in a certain way. I always had an interest in history where i like to learn how and why things work a certain way. But this film was a little bit challenging for me to comprehend, due to the meaty length of the video. As it got a little boring as minutes proceeded throughout the film.
One of the things that stood out to me the most is how he took advantage of every little opportunity that was given to him during his campaign. He took every procedure and moves to be able to be successful. Another thing is how he came from a violent and cruel background but did not shape up to be a cruel man. Although he still did not apply the same laws that applied to the white people to Native Americans and blacks and didn’t give the same rights that they had.
I would have to say i have mixed feelings for Andrew Jackson. He has served the country well by establishing and making decision that benefited the country vastly. But also at the same time made decisions that can be seen as cruel in the modern age. Everything he done was right considering the time period he lived in. He did what he believed was right for the country and what procedures will allow the country to evolve and develop into the next step.
5. Personally, this film was moving very slowly at first, but the further it went on the more interesting it became for me. I actually didn’t know much about Andrew Jackson until watching this film. The main fact that really stood out to me was how much of a controversial person Jackson was. People viewed Jackson in both good and bad ways. Andrew Jackson, according to the film, was against the Native Americans, but gave a lot of importance to his people (Mainly whites). Jackson suppressed the rights of many people, he took an advantage of his power. At one point, Jackson instated his Indian removal act (1830), which cause around 45 thousand Cherokee Indians to leave their land and migrate to the west. The way Jackson treated these Native Americans was one of the worst things he is known for. However, even after all the bad he has done, he also wanted the best for his country. One major positive affect Jackson left for America is the way presidential campaigns are held. Before he came, the elections used to run on a party platform. Jackson changed this way, and actually appealed to the people by holding multiple rallies, and making more appearances and speeches in front of people. By doing all this, Andrew Jackson let the people be more involved in these presidential elections.
So at the end, Jackson seemed like a very controversial man to me. In a way, I would say that he represented a normal human being, as everyone has their positive and negative sides. Although he has made bad choices about certain things, he was also a very good leader for our country. Throughout the whole video, this is what stood out to me the most about Andrew Jackson.
Looking forward to seeing all your responses!
