In the Federalist Papers, the framers of the U.S. constitution specifically sought to dispel fears the American presidency was comparable with the British king: The equivalency, in their eyes, was considered false. The following excerpts illustrate the argument that the powers of presidency could not exceed that of the governor of New York, for example. Readers, however, should also keep in mind that the authority associated with the British monarchy has diminished (partly in response to American Independence and the French Revolution) since the signing of the American Constitution in 1787.
That magistrate is to be elected for FOUR years; and is
to be re-eligible as often as the people of the United States shall think him
worthy of their confidence. In these circumstances there is a total
dissimilitude between HIM and a king of Great Britain, who is an HEREDITARY
monarch, possessing the crown as a patrimony descendible to his heirs forever;
but there is a close analogy between HIM and a governor of New York, who is
elected for THREE years, and is re-eligible without limitation or intermission.
If we consider how much less time would be requisite for establishing a
dangerous influence in a single State, than for establishing a like influence
throughout the United States, we must conclude that a duration of FOUR years
for the Chief Magistrate of the Union is a degree of permanency far less to be
dreaded in that office, than a duration of THREE years for a corresponding
office in a single State.
The President of the United States would be liable to be
impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high
crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to
prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the
king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional
tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected
without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and
important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of
Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New
York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware.
…
Hence it appears that, except as to the concurrent
authority of the President in the article of treaties, it would be difficult to
determine whether that magistrate would, in the aggregate, possess more or less
power than the Governor of New York. And it appears yet more unequivocally,
that there is no pretense for the parallel which has been attempted between him
and the king of Great Britain. But to render the contrast in this respect still
more striking, it may be of use to throw the principal circumstances of
dissimilitude into a closer group.
The President of the United States would be an officer
elected by the people for FOUR years; the king of Great Britain is a perpetual
and HEREDITARY prince. The one would be amenable to personal punishment and
disgrace; the person of the other is sacred and inviolable. The one would have
a QUALIFIED negative upon the acts of the legislative body; the other has an
ABSOLUTE negative. The one would have a right to command the military and naval
forces of the nation; the other, in addition to this right, possesses that of
DECLARING war, and of RAISING and REGULATING fleets and armies by his own
authority. The one would have a concurrent power with a branch of the
legislature in the formation of treaties; the other is the SOLE POSSESSOR of
the power of making treaties. The one would have a like concurrent authority in
appointing to offices; the other is the sole author of all appointments. The
one can confer no privileges whatever; the other can make denizens of aliens,
noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to
corporate bodies. The one can prescribe no rules concerning the commerce or
currency of the nation; the other is in several respects the arbiter of
commerce, and in this capacity can establish markets and fairs, can regulate
weights and measures, can lay embargoes for a limited time, can coin money, can
authorize or prohibit the circulation of foreign coin. The one has no particle
of spiritual jurisdiction; the other is the supreme head and governor of the
national church! What answer shall we give to those who would persuade us that
things so unlike resemble each other? The same that ought to be given to those
who tell us that a government, the whole power of which would be in the hands
of the elective and periodical servants of the people, is an aristocracy, a
monarchy, and a despotism
No comments:
Post a Comment