Final answer:
President Jackson's actions during his presidency, particularly his approach to the nullification crisis and his use of vetoes, demonstrate a strong executive stance and his interpretation of the separation of powers as being part of a system of 'separated institutions sharing powers.
Step-by-step explanation:
The query concerns what President Jackson's refusal to enforce a Supreme Court decision reveals about his interpretation of the separation of powers in the Constitution. President Jackson's stance upheld a stronger role for the executive branch, which sometimes resulted in a flexible interpretation of constitutional powers.
For instance, during the nullification crisis, Jackson favored the preservation of the Union and centralized power, as opposed to the outright support of states' rights. This approach was mirrored in his vetoes of congressional bills like the Maysville Road bill, which he regarded as beyond the powers granted to the federal government.
Despite the separation of powers, he might have overstepped his executive boundaries, an issue often raised regarding his actions during the Indian Removal period.
However, President Jackson's actions must also be understood within the framework described by political scientist Richard Neustadt, where the government consists of 'separated institutions sharing powers.' In such a system, the branches are expected to work in cooperation rather than in isolation.
Thus, Jackson's views reflected both a strong executive role and a need to work within the overall structure of federal power and checks and balances.