Introduction
The establishment of the office of the president by the United State’s Constitution towards the end of the 1780s marked a significant milestone in the country’s history. According to Clause 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution, “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as…” (Amar 49).
The Constitution advocated the election of a powerful and responsible person and people outside the legislature would elect the president. This move created an opportunity for the president to work without interference from the Congress. This paper seeks to address how the office of the president has grown with time in connection with the recognition of the executive powers. Currently, a president is held accountable for his/her actions and s/he works with different arms of the government to ensure balanced governance. It is important to consider this topic as it addresses the majority of controversies surrounding the office of the president. In most controversies, people criticize the president for implementing decisions beyond his/her presidential powers. However, this topic will highlight the significant milestones that this office has achieved since its formation in a bid to achieve a balanced government. With reference to the theory of federalism, this paper will be based on Alexander Hamilton’s article, The Federalist No. 70.
Articulation of the article in relation to the growth of presidency and executive powers
Hamilton’s article, Federalist Paper No. 70, assumes a counter-intuitive approach to defending the implementation of executive powers and safeguarding the safety of the republicans. The separation of executive powers between the two houses, viz. the House of Representative and the Senate is of equal importance due to the debate on domestic violence among other issues that affect the society. In most cases, the people’s perception toward a democratic government entails pushing its officials to fulfil the majorities’ will. However, Publius, in Hamilton’s article, associates democracy with the good execution of people’s will by the government officers (Hamilton par. 1).
From the article, it is evident that Hamilton advocated the establishment of an executive branch to strengthen unity among states. According to Allen and Cloonan, the theory of federalism advocates governance by a group of people bound by a covenant, but headed by a representative (85). Hamilton’s suggestion to have an executive branch was in line with federalism, as the executive would ensure a democratic government characterized by fair distribution of power between the states and federal government (Allen and Cloonan 337).
With reference to Hamilton’s article, the establishment of unified executive branches strengthens the presidency further and maintains accountability in the government at the same time. Through a flexible structure, the president can issue directives deemed to violate his/her constitutional mandates, especially in the times of crises. In the contemporary times, the world is under a security crisis with separatists groups emerging to advance their interests and beliefs. Unfortunately, some of these believes are a threat to the peaceful existence of humanity. For instance, the latest group to emerge is the ISIS and it is wrecking havoc in Iraq.
Therefore, in such times when disaster can strike at anytime, the president needs to exercise executive powers to contain some situations. With reference to accountability, Hamilton cites the executive branch as a promoter of accountability within the structures of power (par.4). Initially, the Constitution recommended the establishment of the office of the president, but the holder would be elected by people outside the legislature to enhance the independence of the office. The lack of a structure that could question policies or actions implemented in the president’s office undermined accountability. Furthermore, accountability adds to the equal representation in the government in addition to promoting effective governance (Nelson 48). Moreover, the US had two Houses, and thus unitary executive branch was crucial in a bid to avoid the implementation of multiple executive structures that contributed to the country’s decline. Hamilton supports this argument by quoting the decline of Rome following the disunity amongst council members (par.7).
In most cases, people fail to differentiate tyranny from democratic governance as advocated by federalism. People perceive democracy as forcing the government to fulfill the citizens’ will, but Hamilton cites it as the government’s free will to fulfill people’s will (par.1). Ironically, democracy gives people the freedom to do many things without the interference of the government. Unfortunately, some individuals use this opportunity to abuse their freedom and advance selfish agenda. Therefore, the government has to implement check and balances to ensure the safety and well-being of everyone.
However, people hold on to this notion because they do not want to embrace the fact that democracy comes at a price especially in achieving and maintaining governmental balance. Nevertheless, by enhancing unity, adequate support, and competent powers, democratic governance empowers the president to execute the law without legislative interference on his/her constitutional mandate. Such a claim is supported by the unitary executive theory that the president has competent unilateral authority and executive powers to implement the Constitution (Calabresi and Yoo 275).
In the article, Hamilton recommends a need for strong and unified executive branch, and this perspective has been used over time to justify the expansion of the executive and presidential powers. However, the expansion that happens beyond constitutional boundaries must be executed at times of crises such as civil wars and other events that affect the country’s security. For example, during the American Revolution, it was the responsibility of the parliament to determine what the government had to do in the course of the war.
However, Abraham Lincoln, in his capacity as the president, acted in the absence of congressional approval and suspended the Habeas Corpus. President Lincoln acted in what he thought was the best interest of the country at such a time of conflict. Suspending Habeas Corpus was critical at the time because with the destruction of railroad tracks, the capacity of the army to confront the south would be compromised. According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the suspension was unconstitutional and the naval blockade crippled the economy of the states in the south. However, Lincoln acted against the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s decision in a bid to safeguard the security interests of the states in the Northern region of America (Harris and Tichenor 117).
In the recent times, the justifications for executive power as outlined in the Federalist No. 70 influenced President Bush’s foreign policy in the course of his administration. With reference to Hamilton’s argument, energetic and unitary executive plays a crucial role in enhancing national security. For example, following the 9/11 attack, the executive was more involved than other government arms in restoring national security. The formation of a post 9/11 committee to deal with matters of national security was an indication of the president’s authority to implement executive powers independently. Furthermore, the committee recommended the need for the execution of the country’s foreign policy without the involvement of the Congress. The committee’s recommendation revolves around Hamilton’s argument concerning accountability through a unitary executive branch (Calabresi and Yoo 274).
Moreover, the “Constitution bestows upon the president the power and authority to enhance the country’s national security” (Allen and Cloonan 340). With such a constitutional mandate, it is an indication that the accountability of national security rests with the president. According to Hamilton, the centralization of presidential authority is crucial at the time of crisis to ensure effective accountability (par.5). National security cannot be maintained effectively in the absence of proper mobilization of resources and strong foreign policy in addition to other aspects of national defense. With reference to this argument and Hamilton’s views in Federalist No. 70, it was right for President Bush to implement strategies against terrorism, despite the lack of congressional consent.
Furthermore, Bush’s move can be attributed to the fact that the President has adequate access to the country’s security details. Therefore, only the president has a clear perception of the country’s security details and status. In another instance, President Bush invoked Federalist No. 70 when he assented to the legislation on treatment of detainees in 2005. In 2011, President Obama followed suit and expanded his executive powers without congressional consent. The changes aimed at “annulling the provisions that limited the President from dealing with the Guantanamo Bay prisoners” (Nelson 93).
With reference to the unitary executive theory as applied by Hamilton, the president has a primary duty to head the executive branch. As the head of the executive, the President is charged with maintaining unity in the executive branch. For example, in the case on the Brandy Act, the Supreme Court cited the need for accountability and unity in the country’s executive in declining the plea to delegate gun control from the President (Harris and Tichenor 275).
Studying the significance of the executive branch in connection with the office of the president highlights significant developments in the presidency since the formation of this office through the Constitution in the 1780s. Initially, although the Constitution promoted independence of the office of the president, the president could not act or implement policies outside his/her prerogative powers. Regarding these developments in presidency, the country will experience strict foreign policy as different Presidents aim at ending terrorism in the future.
Conclusion
The office of the president has experienced significant growth milestones since its inception through the Constitution. Initially, the Constitution advocated independence of the office, hence barring accountability within the office. However, with Hamilton’s argument regarding the establishment of a unitary executive branch, the president can invoke Federalist No. 70 and expand his/her mandate beyond constitutional provisions. For example, President Lincoln invoked Federalist No. 70 to safeguard the security of the northern states by placing a naval blockade without congressional consent. Furthermore, President Obama invoked Federalist No. 70 to expand his executive powers in dealing with detainees.
Works Cited
Allen, William, and Kevin Cloonan. The Federalist Papers: A Commentary: the Baton Rouge Lectures, New York: Lang, 2000. Print.
Amar, Akhil. America’s Constitution: A Biography, New York: Random House, 2006. Print.
Calabresi, Steven, and Christopher Yoo. “Toward a representational theory of the executive: The unitary executive.” Boston University Law Review 91.273 (2008): 273-303. Print.
Hamilton, Alexander. The executive department further considered: The Federalist No. 70 1788. Web.
Harris, Richard, and Daniel Tichenor. A History of the U.S Political System: Ideas, Interests, and Institutions, Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2010. Print.
Nelson, Michael. The Presidency and the Political system, Thousand Oaks: CQ Press, 2014. Print.