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. …show more content…
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 …show more content…
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