Jay opens his argument by defending the power the Constitution gives to the president to “…make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur.” He continues to explain why it is important for the president and the Senate to control this power because they are the men who are “most distinguished by their abilities and virtue and in whom the people perceive just grounds for confidence.” He believes Senators are well apt to make decisions based on age and other factors stated in the Constitution. Jay continues to stress if “the president and Senators so chosen will always be of the number of those who best understand our national interest,” then giving these men power will make sure the “treaties may be safely lodged.”
Jay discusses why the Senate, and not the other branches, should be actively involved in the treaty process. Jay counters why the House should not have the power to approve the treaties. He argues that since the members of the House are “constantly coming and going in quick succession” power must rest in the hands of a body that have “sufficient time to become perfectly acquainted.” Jay then turns his attention to the act of secrecy needed with the creation of treaties and how this level of secrecy might not be achieved in the House. For example, the president could require “perfect secrecy and immediate dispatch” in regards to a specific treaty. The president would be able to negotiate his treaty and then, at the right moment, ask for “the advice and consent of the Senate.” This would allow the president to inform the smaller body of the Senate and not a “large popular assembly” like the House. Jay contends this would assist a president’s ability to pen a treaty with secrecy to benefit the national good.
No comments:
Post a Comment