As Publius continues to drill into the controversial subject of the Presidency, Hamilton discusses the differences between the nature of our President and European Kings or even the Governor of New York, the state delegation that Hamilton is addressing in this paper. In each of these cases, executive authority is held by one person, but the similarities end there.
To begin with, Hamilton points out that our President is in his position for only 4 years although he can be re-elected as many times as the electors of the individual states see fit to do so. Remember that the two-term limit of our Presidency did not come into being until the 22nd Amendment in 1951 and is a relatively recent development. The King of England, with whom those who distrusted the office of the Presidency often compared the position, gained his seat through heredity, with no input from the population, and remained there until passing the position to his heirs.
A more analogous position might be the governor of New York who was then elected for three-year terms and could continue to serve for as long as he was re-elected. If it was reasonable for New York to have such an arrangement for their governor, it would be difficult for the delegation there to object to the Presidency on those same grounds.
Hamilton goes on to point out that the President is subject to removal “upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors”[1] using the process of impeachment, and then would be subject to other punishment as any other citizen. It would take a revolution to remove the King of England.
The King of England had, at the time, an absolute veto over any legislation. The President’s veto authority can be overruled by two thirds vote of both houses of congress, and Hamilton points out that this authority was also held by the Governor of Massachusetts.
Our President serves as the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces but cannot declare war himself. That power is reserved to Congress. In fact, because the governors of the various states could command their militias, and call them out when necessary, Hamilton points out that the President’s power is actually less than that held by the various states. And unlike his state counterparts, the President cannot raise money for the military as that power is held exclusively by the Congress. His power of pardons is limited to matters that are not the subject of an impeachment, unlike the pardon power of the New York governor.
His ability to adjourn the Congress is limited only to when there is a disagreement on that timing within the Congress itself. Whereas the British monarch could dissolve parliament whenever he chose to do so.
Unlike a King he cannot make treaties with other nations without the Advice and Consent of the Senate, and any agreement that is made outside of that process does not bind the United States.
All Ambassadors, Justices, and public ministers are also subject to Senate approval. Here Hamilton points out that, should the Senate be divided “no appointment could be made”. This is crucial for understanding what happened when the Senate declined to take up a vote on Merrick Garland. They were under no obligation to do so according to the Constitution. The President can only nominate, he cannot unilaterally confirm.
The King, on the other hand, can “not only appoint(s) to all offices, but can create offices. He can confer titles of nobility at pleasure; and has the disposal of an immense number of church preferments.” Here we see why the First Amendment prohibits the ‘establishment’ of religion. It was not to interfere with its practice, but rather to keep the state from having an official role in the practice thereof.
And finally, the King could make “corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies” and “denizens of aliens”, essentially confirming the rights of a King’s subject upon anyone he wished, resident of his country or not. The rules of the Constitution would prohibit the President from making such unilateral decisions.
Indeed.
[1] All quotes are from https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-61-70#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493456
To read all of John Parillo’s work on the Federalist Papers, check here.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
Always good to revisit the Federalist Papers. Congress needs to take back its powers and strictly limit the Executive Branch. Cutting the size of the civil service would be a good start, too.