Executive Power Debate Analysis

The compelling arguments made by Federalists and anti-Federalists regarding the office and powers of the presidency leading up to and during the ratifying debates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were persuasive, and distinctly at odds. Both sides however, sought the same thing, how best to allocate power in a unified republic of states? From this question opposing views developed as to whether or not an executive power in the form of a president should exist, and if so, what powers they should be vested with. I will examine briefly, the opposing views of some of these presidential powers in the interest of offering a clear understanding of their differing motivations. I will then offer my opinion as to which made the better argument.
Let us, in a manner of speaking, begin at the end of the constitutional conventions disagreements by examining what powers were eventually vested in the office of presidency. These powers were granted to the new office once the constitution was ratified making it the cornerstone and supreme law of the land of the newly formed constitutional federal republic. Through this new governmental system the office of presidency was given many executive powers, to be checked through Congress and an independent judiciary. The Presidency has the power to approve and veto laws. Meaning, the President has a certain degree of oversight power over Congress to check what might be perceived as an overzealous or overreaching legislative branch on occasion. The President must approve of that which is to become new or changes to legislation. If the President disapproves and vetoes the law it is sent back to Congress for revision. Congress has the power to override the Presidents veto if a large majority in both houses consent(Colonies to Nation, 549). The President is also only granted power to hold office for a term of four years. After which time the person must be re-elected through the Electoral College to continue to occupy the position. The elected President will also serve as Commander in Chief of the Armed Services. He may not declare war, but he may deploy soldiers. He may require in writing the opinions of any of the heads of state departments as it relates to their respective offices. The President also has the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the U.S., except in cases of impeachment. The President also has the power to make treaties with foreign powers provided the Senate has consented by a two thirds majority. He may also appoint ambassadors, ministers, consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and other officers with the advice and consent of the Senate. The President also has the power to fill vacancies in the Senate temporarily. On extraordinary occasion the President may convene or temporarily adjourned either or both legislative houses. The executor is also charged with meeting with ambassadors and other public representatives. The President can also be removed from office early by process of Impeachment for treason, bribery, or other high crimes of misdemeanors.
With the presidential powers now outlined let us explore the opposing views of some of the awarded powers(Colonies of Nations, 549-553). The power to approve and veto laws was one of many points of contention regarding the office.
Proponents of the empowered executive position argued that weak executives at the state level were the reasons the Articles of Confederacy were not working. The power to approve and veto was essential in preventing the siphoning of power from one branch of government to be concentrated in another. This executive oversight branch of government served as a safeguard protect the others. Or as Alexander Hamilton stated, “the necessity of furnishing each with a constitutional arms for its own defence, has been inferred and proved”(113). Hamilton further argued this safeguard was a key to keeping governmental powers from being blended and concentrated in the same hands. Hamilton claimed it protected the people from the enaction of improper laws and provided a “salutary check upon the legislative body calculated to guard the community against the effects of faction, precipitancy, or of any impulse unfriendly to the public good”(113).The anti-Federalists however, argued quite the opposite. They contended that the wisdom and virtue of one man should not supersede the wisdom of the legislative branch. They further argued the executive should not be allowed any amount of control over the legislature and that through the presidential veto power they would exert to much influence over
legislation(114). Let us now examine the opposing arguments for the presidential term in office.
Federalists argued the executive office holder should be elected to office for four years and may remain as long as he is re-elected. Drawing parallels to state governors which were elected for three years, Federalists argued a similar model on a larger scale. Federalists like Hamilton also made a point of illustrating clear contrast between this executive and that of a monarchical system. Federalists characterized the presidency as more of a wise and benevolent overseer of a large administration than a hereditary monarch prone to despotism. Hamilton also argued that due to the necessity of being re-elected every four years the president would need to care for the interests of his constituents or suffer not being elected again. Federalists further argued with impeachment clearly imbedded in the constitution, a check on abuses of executive power was firmly in place. Anti-Federalists argued that a person given that much power and command over the military would be very reluctant to surrender it. George Mason believed that once great men gain power they will be elected time and time again for life. He saw no precedent in other countries where once power was seized it was later relinquished. He further argued that attempts to oust the executive from power would be blocked by his allies therefore the election of a president without periodical rotation would be a de facto one for
life(93). The presidential power of being Commander and Chief of the Armed Services as we call them today was serious point of contention amongst the opposing factions. Federalists argued that the president would only occasionally command the military by legislative provision. They further argued that his power over the military would be substantially inferior to a monarchal command. Hamilton argued he would have no power to declare war or raise and regulate troops and fleets(108). Hamilton further contended that the president would wield less power than current governors when it came to military matters. Anti-Federalists believed vesting this power within one man was a path to tyranny under a military government. Anti-Federalists sought to have this presidential power deeply restrained so much in fact they lobbied to have the president barred from ever commanding in person(Martin, 90). They also argued if the president was in the process of being impeached he would still be in command of the military and pose a serious threat to the republic. Anti-Federalists also argued to have certain rights added to the bill of rights to protect them from a militarized government led by a Commander in Chief. These rights include protection from quartering soldiers and the right to bear arms(Colonies to Nation, 582). The power of the presidency to grant reprieves and pardons was seen by Federalists as useful tool to be utilized rarely in the interest of keeping the peace. The presidential pardon was argued to be a peaceful exhaust valve to work swiftly to alleviate a costly, disruptive, and timely situation. Hamilton argued its primary function was, “ In seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a well timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth; and which, if suffered to pass unimproved, it may never be possible afterwards to recall”(Hamilton, 118). Anti-Federalists saw the situation very differently. They believed that this would give the executive power to conspire for personal gain with others and have legal recourse to protect them from prosecution. Martin argued, “the president has the power of pardoning those who are guilty of treason… it was said that no treason was so likely to take place as that in which the president himself might be engaged...and establish himself in regal authority… to secure from punishment the creatures of his ambition, the associates of his treasonable practices”(Martin, 90).
In light of the problematic Articles of Confederation concerning making treaties Federalists lobbied to make this the sole purview of the presidency with congressional consent. Prior to to the ratification of the constitution states had been brokering their own treaties with foreign governments like the British and Native American tribes(138B, First Republican Governments). Federalists believed that concentrating this important task in the hands of the executive was essential to nation building. Anti-Federalist James Monroe explained his concern for presidential treaty making thus,” If he makes a treaty bartering the interests of his country, by whom is he to be tried? By the very persons who advised him to perpetrate the act?”(97).
Federalists argued that the power to impeach the president provided a safeguard to abuses. Hamilton states, “ the president...would be liable to be impeached, tried, and upon conviction of treason, bribery or other crimes, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law”(106). Essentially Hamilton argues the executive is held just as accountable as any other citizen unlike a king who is treated as sacred and inviolable(106). Anti-Federalists contended that the Senate and the Presidency are too closely connected and it would be exceedingly difficult from them to break ranks with one another (unless in extreme circumstance) to carry out the proceedings of impeachment. Or as Monroe states, “in its current form, the guilty try themselves”(101).
When considering which side makes the most persuasive argument I tend to agree with the Federalists. They developed a new form republican government that blended the best elements of the British and the confederacy system possible at the time. This required vision and compromise to appease so many opposing conflicting views. I believe they deeply wished to form a more perfect union and acted from a place of optimism and hope that a government can truly be of the people when well administered through their representatives and guided by well designed constitution. The Anti-Federalist view of government tends to be rooted primarily in fear. Of course, many of their fears were certainly valid given the abuses colonists experienced at the hands of arbitrary power prior to the revolution. I also think had the Anti-Federalists not fought tooth and nail against the Federalists the compromise that was created through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights may not have stood the test of time. Through their dialectical process, I believe the two groups created the framework of a nation that would become far more enduring than either group could have developed on their own.