The Nullification Crisis of the early 1830s arose when South Carolina declared it could nullify federal tariffs, viewing them as unconstitutional and detrimental to its economy. President Andrew Jackson opposed this stance, asserting the supremacy of federal law and threatening military action against South Carolina if it did not comply. Ultimately, a compromise tariff was reached, but Jackson's strong stance set a precedent for federal authority over states' rights, reinforcing the idea that states could not unilaterally nullify Federal Laws. This event highlighted the tensions between state sovereignty and federal power, a recurring theme in American political discourse.
No.
The 1908 Case Of Muller Vs. State Of Orgeon Was Precedent Setting In That The Supreme Court
Ballsack in my mouth!
A "landmark" or a "precedent-setting" case.
He was accused of libel.
His 12 vetoes in 2 terms did set a precedent , in that , unlike previous presidents, he vetoed all bills which he thought were bad for the country. Previous presidents tacltly asserted that Congress had the right to pass any law they wished to pass, so long as they did not violate the constitution. The bank veto was consistent with his view of the purpose of the veto, but I do not think it was the one that set a precedent. Indeed, Congress expected him to veto it, but they wanted to force him to create an election issue in the election of 1832- he enemies thought the veto would hurt him in the elecwtion.
home
Modern Day
Work can be heavy at times meaning the amount to get done is more than usual. Describe how you handled it by setting priorities and working over time as needed.
I am not sure how important it was since there were not really very many presidents who would have served a third term even without Washington's precedent. Maybe Jefferson, Madison, Monroe or Theodore Roosevelt would have considered a third term had the precedent not been set against it. Jackson and Wilson might have if they were healthier when their second terms ended.
'Setting a precedent' is similar to saying 'setting the standard'. When a court (with a large jurisdiction) rules a certain away, they set a standard that forces the lower courts to make similar rulings for similar circumstances.
It is all over the US. technically.