In contrast to Washington, who viewed the proper role of a presidential veto was to strike down policies that were deemed unconstitutional as opposed to policies that were deemed unwise on face value, Jackson redefined the proper of the presidential veto by insisting that the president had the obligation to reject bills he felt would “injure” the nation. Taking this principle, Jackson vetoed the national bank bill, arguing that the re-chartering a national bank was not only unwise but also unconstitutional. This bank veto not only illustrates conflict between the executive and the legislative branch but resulted in significant changes between the two branches. For instance, Jackson’s veto of the national bank greatly altered the relationship between the legislative branch and the executive branch, for Congress, as a result, would need to take into consideration the president’s opinion to avoid the risk of a presidential