Asap! : ) write 1-2 paragraphs explaining the court case of mcculloch vs. gibbons from andrew jackson's point of view.

       Andrew Jackson started the "Bank War" over the rechartering of the Second Bank of the United States. Proponents of the bank said that it encouraged westward expansion, expanded international commerce using credit, and helped reduce the government's debt. Jackson, on the other hand, was heavily against the BUS, calling it a danger to the liberties of the people.  A champion for the rights of the common man, he advocated to protect the farmers and laborers. He claimed that the bank was owned by a small group of upperclass men, who only became richer by pocketing the money paid by the poorer common man for loans.
      Jackson argued against the constitutionality of the BUS that was upheld about fourteen years before, during the 1819 McCulloch v. Maryland case. One of the points of the unanimous decision in that case stated that Congress had the power to establish the bank. Jackson, however, said that McCulloch v. Maryland could not prevent him from declaring a presidential veto on the bank if he believed it unconstitutional. He said that the decision in that 1819 case “ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution," meaning that the 1819 decision could not control his interpretation of the Constitution or prevent him from doing what he thought was right. This point of view earned him the nickname "King Andrew I" from his critics, who saw his use of the veto and his attempted intrusion on congressional power as power-hungry behavior. In the end, Jackson was successful in challenging the bank, as its charter expired in 1836. He had successfully killed the "monster" that was the Bank of the United States.

Doesn't your school check for plagarism?