Was Andrew Jackson's veto a expansion of presidential power?

Answer 1

No it was not. Guest964 seems to be mistaken.

The expansion of presidential power is usually undertaken by instituting or claiming to have a power that is not explicity granted in the Constitution; the Constitutional wording is then interpreted in a certain regard, along with precedents usually from past Supreme Court cases.

For example, American citizens under the security of the Bill of Rights, have the right to a speedy trial, to not incriminate themselves, the right to a writ of habeas corpus, etc. Yet under the Authorization to Use Military Force Act of 2001, the president was given, by congressional legislation, legal authority to detain any person that is deemed to be apart of compliant of any terrorist ogranization, such as Al Qaeda, or the Taliban, indefinitely. This means American citizens if found to be an "enemy combatant", and there have been, they have no more rights as an American citizen would be awarded and you may be locked up indefinitely or until there is sufficient evidence to see to your release.

Andrew Jackson, used a power designated within the Constitution. This power comes from Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, making it not an expansion of power, but a normal, designated use of it, intended by the framers. Bush being able to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and have the courts agree, is a clear sign of presidential power expansion.