Hamilton says the executive department is the focus of Federalist 67. The executive is the hardest department to set up. It is the most vehemently criticized department. He says that with the executive department those who are against the Constitution seem to have utilized their talent for misrepresentation. Knowing the people's aversion to monarchy, they have endeavored to enlist all of their jealousies and apprehension in opposition to the proposed president of the United States. Hamilton says that the anti-Federalists, in order to establish the pretended affinity have even drawn from the realm of fiction. The authorities of the magistrate, in some instances greater, in some instances less, than those of the governor of New York have been magnified into more than royal prerogatives. The anti-federalists believe the president has been decorated with attributes superior to those of the King of Great Britain. The president has been shown to us with a diadem sparkling on his brow and the Imperial purple flowing in his train. He has been seated on the throne surrounded by minions and mistresses, while meeting leaders of foreign countries in all the pomp of majesty. Hamilton says that citizens have almost been taught to tremble at the terrific vestiges of murdering janizaries, and to bloodshed that unveiled its mysteries of a future seraglio.
Hamilton says attempts to disfigure or metamorphose the presidency make it necessary to take an accurate view of its real nature and form in order to ascertain its true aspect in genuine appearance. The anti-Federalists deduced that the president has the power to fill vacancies in the Senate. It is a pretend power. Hamilton explains the second clause of the second section of the second article to the Constitution w empowers the president of the United States to, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and councils, judges to the Supreme Court and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not in the Constitution not otherwise established by law. The president also has the power to fill all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session. Hamilton says that this provision is where the pretend power of the president to fill all vacancies on the Senate comes from.
The first of the two clauses of the second section of the second article of the Constitution only provides a mode for appointing officers whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in the Constitution, and which are not established by law. This does not extend to the appointment of senators whose appointments are otherwise provided for in the Constitution, and are established by the Constitution, and will not require a future establishment by law. Hamilton says this position will hardly be contested.
The last two of these clauses cannot be understood to comprehend the power of filling vacancies in the Senate either for the following reasons. First, how these clauses relate to each other in that they do know the general mode of appointing officers of the United States. They are a supplement to the other for the purpose of establishing, in cases to which the general method was inadequate. The ordinary power of appointment lies with the president and the Senate jointly, and can therefore only be exercised during the session of the Senate; but because it would have been improper to make this body be continually incessant for the appointment of officers, and vacancies that might happen in the recess, which it might be necessary to fill without delay, the succeeding clause is intended to authorize the president to make temporary appointments during the recess of the Senate.
Second, if this clause is considered supplementary to the one which precedes it, the vacancies it speaks of must be construed to relate to the officers described in the preceding one; and this excludes from its description members of the Senate. Third, the time within which the power is to operate conspired to elucidate the sense of the provision which, if it had been intended to comprehend senators, but naturally have referred the temporary power filling vacancies to the recess of state legislatures, who are to make the permanent appointments, and not to the recess of the national Senate is no concern and those appointments would have extended the duration of the temporary senators to the next session of the state legislature. The body authorized to make the appointments would, of course, have governed the modification of power which related to the temporary appointments. The Senate is the body the situation is contemplated in the clause upon which the suggestion under examination. Therefore, the vacancies that it talks about can only be thought to be those in the appointment that has a concurrent agent with the president. Lastly, the first and second clauses of the third section of the last article not only obviate all possibility of doubt, but destroy the pretext of misconception. The former provides that the Senate of the United States is to be comprised of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature of each state for 6 years. The latter directs that if vacancies and should happen by resignation or otherwise, during the recess of any state legislature, the executive of the state may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature which will then fill any vacancies. This is a clear and express power given to state executives to fill casual vacancies in the Senate by temporary appointments. This not only invalidates that such power rests with the president of the United States, but proves that this power must not have originated in the intention to deceive the people of the United States.
Hamilton says in this Federalist paper he has taken great pains to clear up this misrepresentation as proof of the unwarrantable arts which are practiced to prevent a fair and impartial judgment of the real merits of the Constitution by the people.
Hamilton says the anti-Federalists are very against having a president of the United States. But I have to wonder if they did not want a president, as the Constitution specifies, what kind of chief executive do they want. I cannot imagine that they would be for having Monarch when I revolution was just faught to get the colonies out from under a monarch. If the anti-Federalists want a country much like what is under the Articles of Confederation, what happens when the country is under attack? Do the anti-Federalists expect all of the state militia to easily be under the command of a commander for the Confederate Army? I think that's an impossibility under the Articles of Confederation because each state has so much autonomy. I think the country is safer under the Constitution because we have one military under one commander-in-chief instead of 50 state militias trying to organize under the president as commander-in-chief.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHarold Nash:
ReplyDeleteProbably not that we need a great deal of historical reminding, but Federalist Paper #67 points out that political animosity was alive and well in the late 1780s much as it is today. In Federalist #67 (which deals with "The Executive Department"), Hamilton reveals that great difficulty accompanied the arrangement of The Executive Department, yet it remained that part of the new system that had been "inveighed against" with minimal candor and judgement. The writers against the Constitution "seem to have taken pains to signalize their talent of misrepresentation…they have endeavored to enlist all (the) jealousies and apprehensions (of the American public) in opposition to the intended President of the United States; not merely as the embryo, but as the full grown progeny, of that detested parent…they have not scrupled to draw resources even from the regions of fiction." And this was in 1788. The much dreaded factional political parties had not yet arrived on the new American scene. Certainly, once created, parties did nothing to tamp down the overheated rhetoric, but Hamilton's words - and presumably those of the opposition who "inveighed against" the newly formed department - illustrate that neither diametrically opposed political parties nor modern day politicians were ancestral prerequisites of political discord.