The Federalist 67:
Written by Alexander Hamilton
This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.
We need to look at the constitution of the executive branch of the proposed government.
It is difficult to arrange the system and it is often criticized without much thought.
The writers of the Constitution seemed to try hard to make it look bad. They knew people did not like monarchies, so they tried to make the President of the United States look like one. They even made up things that weren’t true, like giving the President more authority than a governor of New York and dressing him up with a crown and royal clothes. They even tried to make it seem like the President would have a lot of servants and a harem! They tried to make it seem like the President would be like a king from Asia, who had people around him to hurt or kill anyone who disobeyed him.
Attempts as extreme as these to change the object’s form make it necessary to take an exact look at its true nature and shape. This will help us to see its true form and understand the false similarities that have been spread around so cleverly and purposefully.
It’s hard to not be mad when people try to compare a king of Great Britain to the President of the United States. This is wrong and shouldn’t be done. It’s a lot of effort to be patient or take it seriously. People are using unfair tactics to change public opinion about this. We can’t be nice and forgive them. We have to be angry about it because it’s an act of deception.
An example of how disrespectful the temerity has become is when someone said that the President of the United States has the power to fill the empty spots in the Senate. This power, however, is only given to the executives of the individual states.
This daring test to see if his fellow citizens could tell what was true has been done by the writer, who has been given lots of positive feedback from his own opinion group. He has based his observations on wrong and unsubstantiated ideas. Now he needs to be tested against the facts and see if he can prove that he was telling the truth and followed fair practices.
The second section of the second article states that the President of the United States has the power to choose and appoint ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, Supreme Court judges and other officers of the United States. It then states that the President has the power to fill any vacancies in the Senate that happen during the recess of the Senate. People have used this to say the President has the power to fill vacancies in the Senate. But if you take a closer look at the words, it’s clear that this isn’t true.
It is clear that the first clause only gives a way to choose officers that aren’t already mentioned in the Constitution. This does not include senators since their appointments are already mentioned in the Constitution and they are established by the Constitution. This point isn’t likely to be argued.
It is obvious that the last two clauses cannot be seen as giving the president the power to fill vacancies in the senate. For one thing, the clause is in relation to the other one that talks about the general way to appoint officers in the United States. This means that it is just an add-on to the other which allows for a different way to appoint officers when the general way won’t work. Another reason is that the time frame the power is supposed to work in is “during the recess of the senate” and the appointees will be in office until the end of the next session of the senate. This shows that it can’t be for senators since their appointments are made differently by the state legislatures. Lastly, it is clear that the power to fill vacancies in the senate is given to the state executives and not the president because the third section of the first article states that. All these reasons show that the suggestion of the president having this power is wrong and it was made to trick people.
I’ve taken the time to select this example of lying and put it in a clear light. This is a clear proof of the wrong techniques used to stop people from judging the plan fairly. I don’t feel bad about being harsh in this case. I want to ask any honest person who is against the proposed government if they think I’ve been too tough in describing this shameless and disgusting attempt to deceive the people of America.
The Federalist 68:
Written by Alexander Hamilton
This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.
The way the chief magistrate of the United States is chosen is almost the only part of the system that has not been harshly criticized or praised by its opponents. The most reasonable of them have even said that the election of the president is well-protected. I think it is even more than that and would say that even if it is not perfect, it is really good. It brings together all the things that you would want in an election.
It was important that the people should have a say in who was chosen for such an important job. To make sure that happened, the right to make the choice was given to people who were chosen by the people for this special reason and at the right time.
It was important to choose people who were best suited for the job and could make the best decision. A small group of people chosen by their peers from the general population would be most likely to have the knowledge and wisdom needed for such a difficult decision.
It was important to avoid as much chaos and disorder as possible when deciding who would be in charge of the government. But the system used here will help prevent this problem. It is better to choose several people to be in charge of the election, rather than just one person, because it is less likely to cause trouble among the people. Also, it is better to have the people chosen to vote in their own state, rather than all in one place at the same time. This way, they are less likely to get too worked up about it and spread their emotions to the public.
Nothing was more wanted than to place every possible barrier to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These are the worst enemies of a republic, and could come from many places, especially from foreign countries trying to gain influence in our decision-making. The convention did their best to prevent this. They did not let any existing groups of people pick the president, so that they could be bribed beforehand. Senators, representatives, or anyone else working for the United States are not allowed to pick the president. This means that the people chosen to pick the president will not have any hidden agenda. They are only there for a short time, and are spread across the thirteen states, so it would be hard to get a lot of people together to do something wrong.
Another important thing to consider was that the executive should be independent of anyone but the people themselves for them to stay in office. Otherwise, they might be tempted to do things to please those people whose favor is needed for them to stay in power. This will be prevented by having them be elected by a special group of representatives chosen by the society just for this purpose.
The plan made by the convention is that each state will pick a certain number of people who will be called electors. The number of electors will be the same as the number of senators and representatives the state has in the national government. These electors will gather in the state and vote for someone to be president. The votes will be sent to the national government and whoever has the most votes will be the president. But if no one gets a majority of the votes, then the House of Representatives will pick from the five people who have the most votes, the person who they think is best suited for the job.
The way we elect the president makes it so that only people who have the right skills get the job. It takes more than just being good at making people like you to get elected. You need to be good at a lot of different things and have a lot of people like you in the whole country. Most likely, the president will be a very good and smart person. That is a good thing about our system of government. We cannot accept the political heresy of the poet who says:
“For forms of government, let fools contest. . . . “That which is best administered, is best;”
yet we can say with confidence that the best way to judge a good government is its ability to provide good leadership.
The Vice President is chosen in the same way as the President. The difference is that the Senate is responsible for the former, while the House of Representatives is responsible for the latter.
The selection of an extraordinary person as Vice-President has been criticized as not necessary, or even dangerous. People have said it would have been better for the Senate to choose one of their own. However, two reasons support the idea of the Convention. One is that the President should have a deciding vote in every case, and it would not be good to take a Senator from their position and make them President of the Senate. The other reason is that the Vice-President could be a replacement for the President in emergencies, so all the reasons for how the President is chosen would apply to the Vice-President. It is interesting to note that this objection could also be made against the Constitution of this State. We have a Lieutenant-Governor chosen by the people, who presides over the Senate and is the constitutional replacement for the Governor in situations where the Vice-President would take over the President’s duties and responsibilities.
The Federalist 69:
Written by Alexander Hamilton
This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.
I will now explain the actual roles of the executive proposed in the plan of the convention. This will demonstrate how wrong the claims that have been made about it are.
Upon first look, it is clear that the executive power, with only a few exceptions, will be held by a single person. This fact may not be something to compare, as it is similar to the kings of Great Britain, the Grand Signior, the Khan of Tartary, the man of the seven mountains, and the governor of New York.
The magistrate has to be elected for 4 years and can be re-elected as often as the people of the US think he deserves their trust. This is very different from a king in Great Britain, who is a ruler for life, passing the crown down to his children. But it is similar to the governor of New York, who is elected for 3 years and can be chosen again and again. If you think how much less time it takes for someone to gain power in one state, compared to the whole US, you can see that 4 years for the head of the US is much less of a worry than 3 years for a state leader.
The President of the United States can be impeached, tried and removed from office if they are found guilty of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors. The King of Great Britain, however, is protected and can’t be punished without causing a major revolution. The President of the United States is not more protected than the Governor of New York, but is more protected than the Governors of Virginia or Delaware.
The President of the United States has the power to send back a bill to Congress (the two branches of the legislature) for reconsideration. The bill won’t become a law unless it is approved by two-thirds of both houses after being sent back. The King of Great Britain has an absolute power to say no to the acts of parliament. This power hasn’t been used for a long time, but it still exists. It’s just that the King has found other ways to get the houses to agree with him, like getting a majority in one or both of the houses, rather than using his power, which might cause problems. The President’s power is different from the King’s because it’s a “qualified negative”. It’s similar to the governor of New York, whose power is shared with a council of revision. But it’s the same as the governor of Massachusetts, who is the example the convention used when deciding the President’s power.
The president is the “commander in chief” of the US army, navy, and state militia if called into service. He has the power to grant pardons for offences against the US, but not in cases of impeachment. He can recommend measures to Congress, and call them together if needed. He must also make sure that laws are carried out. His power is similar to the king of Great Britain and the governor of New York, but there are some differences. First, the president only commands the militia when asked to by Congress. The king and governor of New York have complete control of their militia. Second, the president is only commander of the army and navy, while the king of Great Britain can declare war and the governor of New York can command the militia and navy. Third, the president can pardon all offences except impeachment, while the governor of New York can pardon even in cases of impeachment except for treason and murder. Lastly, the president can adjourn the legislature if they disagree on a time, while the king of Great Britain can prorogue or dissolve the parliament and the governor of New York can prorogue the legislature for a set amount of time.
The President has the power, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties. This means that two-thirds of the Senators must agree. The King of Great Britain is the only person who can handle foreign business. He can make treaties of peace, trade, and alliance on his own. Some people have suggested that the King’s authority is not enough and that Parliament must approve the treaties. However, this isn’t true. Every lawyer in Great Britain and everyone who knows the constitution know that the power to make treaties lies with the King alone. Parliament sometimes changes the laws to fit the treaties, but this is only because they need to adjust the laws to the new situation. This is different from the President’s power because he can do it without a branch of the legislature. It is true that the President’s power is greater than any state executive. This is because the Union has exclusive control of making treaties. If the Union were to end, it would be up to the executives of the states to handle this power.
The President is allowed to accept ambassadors and other public ministers. This has been the topic of a lot of speeches, but it is more of a matter of respect than of control. It won’t have much effect on how the government is run. It’s better that it be done this way than having to call a meeting of the legislature or one of its branches every time a foreign minister comes or goes.
The President of the United States can nominate, and with the help of the Senate, appoint certain people to be ambassadors and other public ministers, judges of the Supreme Court and other officers established by law. The King of Great Britain has more power, as he can create offices and give titles of nobility. The President’s power is not the same. The Governor of New York has more power, as the appointment is made in a smaller group with he Governor having the right to nominate and the right to a casting vote. The President’s power is less in this because if the Senate cannot agree, no appointment can be made. The Governor of New York has more power because it is a smaller group and it is easier to influence them than the larger number in the Senate.
It is clear that the President of the United States has less power than the governor of New York, except when it comes to treaties. There is no way to compare the President to the King of Great Britain. To make the differences more obvious, here is a list of the main dissimilarities.
The President of the United States is elected by the people for a period of four years. The King of Great Britain, however, is a perpetual and hereditary prince. The President is subject to personal punishment and disgrace, while the King’s person is considered sacred and inviolable. The President has a limited power to veto the acts of the legislature, while the King has an absolute veto. The President has the power to command the military and naval forces of the nation, but the King has the power to both declare war and raise and regulate fleets and armies. The President has the ability to form treaties alongside a branch of the legislature, but the King is the only one with the power to make treaties. Both the President and the King have the power to appoint people to offices, however the King is the only one who can grant privileges, make people citizens, or create corporations. The President has no power to set rules on commerce or currency, while the King has authority in these areas, and can set markets, regulate weights and measures, lay embargoes, and coin money. The President has no spiritual jurisdiction, while the King is the head of the national church. We can answer those who say that these two things are alike by telling them that a government with all its power in the hands of elected officials is not an aristocracy, monarchy, or despotism.
The Federalist 70:
Written by Alexander Hamilton
This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.
People have an idea that a powerful executive can’t work with a republic government. People who support this type of government must hope this idea is wrong, because if it’s true, it goes against their beliefs. Having strong leadership in the executive branch is important for the protection of the country against foreign attacks and for the enforcement of laws. It also helps protect people’s property and freedom from people who want to be in control and from chaos. People who know Roman history know that the republic often had to turn to one person, called the dictator, to protect them from ambitious people trying to take over, from people who wanted to destroy the government, and from foreign enemies.
No more arguments or examples are necessary to prove this point. A weak executive will lead to a bad execution of the government. If the government is not executed properly, no matter how good it is in theory, it will not be good in practice.
Assuming that all reasonable people will think it’s important to have a strong executive, let’s look at what’s needed to make that happen. How can we make sure the executive is powerful and secure, like it should be in a republic? How does the plan made by the convention measure up?
The components that give energy to the executive branch are unity, long-term support, and enough power to do the job.
The elements that make a republic safe are depending on the people and taking responsibility.
Politicians and statesmen who are most respected are those who believe in one leader and a large group of lawmakers. They believe the leader should be strong and able to make decisions on their own, while the group of lawmakers should think and discuss carefully to win the people’s trust and protect their rights.
There is no doubt that when people are united, their energy is increased. When there is only one person, they tend to make decisions quickly and keep them secret. This means that things get done faster than when there is more than one person. As the number of people increases, these qualities are lessened.
This unity can be destroyed in two ways. First, by having two people with equal authority, like the two consuls of Rome. Or, second, by having one person in charge, but with others helping them out in an advisory role. This is seen in the constitutions of some states, like New York and New Jersey. People who like the idea of an executive council are the most popular. But, both of these ways of destroying unity have their disadvantages, and can be looked at in the same way.
The experience of other countries won’t help us much in this situation. We have seen that the Achaeans stopped using two praetors after trying it out. Roman history shows us many times when trouble came from the disputes between the consuls or military tribunes that replaced them. But there are no examples of anything special the country got from having more than one leader. It’s surprising that there weren’t more arguments between them, considering the difficult position the country was in. The patricians were in a constant battle with the plebeians to keep their power and status. The consuls, who were usually from the patricians, worked together to protect their privileges. And later, when the republic had grown, it became a tradition for the consuls to divide the work between them, with one staying in Rome and the other going to the provinces. This definitely helped prevent fights between them.
Stepping away from historical research and just relying on wisdom and good sense, it’s clear that having more than one person in charge of the executive branch is not a good idea, no matter how it’s set up.
Anytime two or more people are doing something together, they are likely to disagree. If they are in a position of power, the disagreement may become worse. This can lead to arguments which damage the respect for the office, weaken the authority, and make it hard for the people to work together. This is especially bad if it involves the top officials of a country. It can cause trouble for the government and split the country into groups that are against each other.
Many men oppose things just because they had no part in making them, or because it was planned by someone they don’t like. But if they were asked for their opinion and didn’t like it, then in their eyes it becomes a duty to oppose it. They think they have to keep their honor and protect themselves by stopping what was decided on against their will. People with kind and generous personalities see this behavior often and it’s shocking how far people will go and how often society is hurt by people who are powerful enough that their desires matter. This current problem we are facing might be a sad example of how bad this bad behavior can be.
In a free government, there will be inconveniences that come from having a legislature. But it’s not a good idea to put them in the constitution for the executive. This is the worst place for them because the executive needs to act quickly and decisively. In the legislature, it’s better to have debates and different opinions, which can stop bad decisions from the majority. When a decision is made, it’s the law and people must follow it. In the executive, disagreements can only do harm. They make it hard to take action, and they can stop the executive from being able to act quickly and effectively. In times of war, a strong executive is very important for national security, and disagreements could be disastrous.
It must be admitted that these ideas are mainly connected to the first situation, where there is a group of people with the same power and authority. This is not a popular idea, but these ideas still apply to the idea of a council that must agree for the executive branch to do something. If there is a sly group in the council, they could weaken the whole system. Even if there is not a sly group, the different opinions would still weaken the executive branch and make it weak and slow.
There are two kinds of responsibility: being criticized and being punished. It’s especially important in an elected office because it’s more likely that someone in public trust will act in a way that makes them unworthy of being trusted than in a way that breaks the law. The problem with having multiple people in charge is that it can be hard to tell who is really responsible for bad decisions or bad luck. It can be difficult to pick out which person is responsible when there is a lot of finger-pointing and excuses. In complicated situations, it can be impossible to tell who should be held accountable for mistakes.
“My council was not in agreement, so it was impossible to get a better outcome.” People can always say they have a reason why something happened, whether it is true or not. No one likes to take the time or get in trouble by looking too closely at what really happened. Even if someone did look closely, it’s easy to make it seem like nobody did anything wrong.
In this state, the governor and a council work together to appoint people to offices. This has caused some issues. There have been appointments that everyone thought were wrong. When people asked about it, the governor blamed the council and the council blamed the governor. The people are confused about who to blame for their interests being put into the wrong hands. To be nice to people, we won’t mention any specific cases.
It is clear that when the executive has many people in it, people don’t get the best protection they can have. First, the public won’t be able to voice their opinion as easily since it will be split among many people. Second, it will be harder to figure out who is doing wrong and if they should be removed from office or punished.
In England, the king is like a ruler that never stops being in charge. It is an important rule that the king is not responsible for the decisions he makes and that his position is special. To keep the peace, it is a good idea for the king to have a group of people that advise him, who can be held responsible for the suggestions they make. Without this, there would be no one held responsible in the part of the government that makes decisions. But even with this, the king can still choose whether or not to follow the advice he is given. He is the only one in control of his actions while he is in office.
In a republic, it is important that each official is held responsible for their actions. This is different in the monarchy of Great Britain, where having a council serves as a way of making sure the chief magistrate behaves properly. In the American republic, this would take away the responsibility of the chief magistrate and weaken the system.
The idea of having a council for the executive branch, which many state constitutions have, is based on the idea that it is safer to have power in the hands of many people instead of just one. If that was true, I don’t think the benefits would make up for the many disadvantages. But I don’t think this rule should be used for the executive branch. I agree with a writer, who was praised by Junius for being “deep, solid, and ingenious,” that it is better to have one person in charge of the executive power. This will make it easier for the people to keep an eye on them and it will help keep liberty.
Having a little consideration will make us understand that the security we are looking for with multiple executives is not achievable. The amount of people would have to be so large that it would be hard to combine them, and they would be a danger instead of security. If there are only a few people with power, it is easier for a leader to get them to work together and this can be a danger to liberty. For example, the decemvirs of Rome were more powerful when they worked together than if each one had been alone. Nobody would suggest having more than a dozen people in an executive. Even six to twelve is a lot and it could be easy to combine them. This could be more dangerous for America than the ambition of one person. Having a council with a magistrate can be a problem because they could help his bad intentions and cover his faults.
I don’t want to talk too much about money, but if the council is large enough to achieve its goal, the members would need to be paid to live at the seat of government. This would be a major cost, and it’s not clear if it would be worth it.
Before the Constitution was made, I almost never met a smart person from any of the states who didn’t agree that having one leader in charge was one of the best parts of the Constitution.
The Federalist 71:
Written by Alexander Hamilton
This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.
The length of time in office is connected to two things: the personal strength of the leader in using their constitutional power, and the stability of the system of government they put into place. Generally, when someone holds something for a long time, they are more attached to it and willing to risk more for it than if they just had it for a short time. This is true for political roles and powers as much as for ordinary property. If a leader knows their time in office is going to end soon, it’s likely they won’t take any risks or stand up against anything that might make them unpopular. The result is a weak and indecisive leader.
Some people may think it best for a government to do whatever the public or legislature wants. But those people don’t understand the reasons why government exists and how to make people happier. The republican principle means that the public should decide what the government should do. But this doesn’t mean the government should just agree with every opinion people have. People usually mean well when they make decisions, but they make mistakes. It’s amazing that people make so few mistakes, given how easily they can be tricked by flatterers and liars. When what people want and what is best for them are different, it is the government’s job to protect the people’s interests, no matter how unpopular it is. There have been times when this has stopped people from making bad decisions. People are grateful to those who have had the courage to do what’s best for them, even if it makes them angry.
Although we may want the executive to be accommodating to the people’s preferences, we shouldn’t expect them to comply with the legislature’s whims. The people may agree with the legislature or not care at all. In either case, it is important for the executive to be able to make firm decisions based on their own opinion.
The same rule that tells us it is good to divide power between different branches also tells us that this division should be done in a way that makes each branch independent from the other. What is the point of separating the executive or judiciary from the legislative if the executive and judiciary will obey the legislative? That would not be a real separation. It is one thing to be ruled by the laws and another to be under the control of the legislative body. This violates the basic principles of good government, no matter what the constitution says. The tendency of the legislative to take over all the power has been seen in other cases. In purely republican governments, this tendency is almost impossible to stop. Representatives of the people in a popular assembly sometimes think they are the people and get angry if the executive or judiciary do anything they don’t like. They want to control the other departments and usually have the people’s support, which makes it hard for the other parts of the government to keep the balance of the constitution.
It can be asked how short terms in office can make the executive independent of the legislature, if the executive doesn’t appoint or dismiss the legislature? One answer could be that people don’t usually care as much about short-term benefits, so they wouldn’t be willing to take risks for them. Another answer is that the legislature has influence over the people, so they could stop someone from being re-elected if they don’t agree with them.
Can four years be enough to achieve what we set out to do? Is it better to have a shorter period, which would be more secure against ambitious people, even though it may not be long enough to give the magistrate the independence and strength we want?
It can’t be said for sure that four years or any other certain amount of time will meet the goal, but it would help a lot. Having a certain amount of time would mean that the person in power would have to wait quite a while before their term was up, which would give them the courage to do what they think is right. As their term comes to an end, they would be more likely to do things that people would like in order to get re-elected. Four years is enough to make sure the president doesn’t overstep their boundaries, but not enough to make people worry too much about their freedom. The British house of commons has been able to take away a lot of power from the king and nobles, and even got the king worried. So there is no reason to worry about a president with four years of power.
The Federalist 72:
Written by Alexander Hamilton
This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.
The government’s administration is a big concept that includes the legislature, executive, and judiciary branches. Usually, it is used to refer to the executive branch and the details it takes care of. This includes matters like foreign negotiations, financial planning, using and spending public money, and organizing the army and navy. These tasks are managed by people appointed by the president or nominated by them. This means that the stability of the government is linked to the president’s term in office. It is common for a new president to change the people in charge when they come into office. This can lead to a lot of changes in the way the government is run and can be harmful.
For a long time, it’s been important for an officer to have the desire and determination to do their job well, and for the community to be able to observe their work and make an educated judgment of it. It’s also important for the people to be able to keep the officer in their position if they see that their work is good and beneficial to the government. That way, their talents and skills can be utilized for a long time and their system of administration will be permanent.
At first, it seems like a good idea to keep a chief magistrate in office for a certain amount of time and then kick them out. But when you look more closely at this plan, it’s not so great. Whether it’s for a short time or forever, this exclusion would have mostly bad effects.
The exclusion can have a bad effect on someone’s behavior. People don’t work as hard when they know that their position will end at a certain time because they don’t have the hope of getting something in return. It’s clear that having something to gain makes people work harder. Even people who are motivated by fame and want to do something great for the public won’t do it if they know that they won’t get to finish it and their reputation will be left in someone else’s hands. Generally, people would just try to not do anything wrong instead of trying to do something good.
The exclusion of someone from a position might lead to problems. A greedy person in such a role would be tempted to take advantage of the opportunity while it lasts, even if it means using dishonest methods. However, if they thought they could stay in their position with good behaviour, they might be less likely to do so. But if they knew they would eventually lose their position, their greed might overpower their caution or ambition.
A man who is ambitious and in a high position of honor in his country, knows that he will have to come down from this place eventually. He realizes that no matter how hard he works, he won’t be able to stay there. He will be strongly tempted to take any opportunity to hold onto his power, no matter the risk, rather than doing the right thing.
Would having half a dozen former leaders of the government walking around unhappy, wanting a job they can’t have help the peace or stability of the community?
The third bad effect of the exclusion would be taking away the community’s advantage of the experience gained by the chief magistrate in office. This is a popular saying that even the smartest people recognize: “Experience is the parent of wisdom.” What is more important for leaders of nations than wisdom? Where can it be more important than in the leader of a country? It would not be smart to put this desirable and essential quality outside of the constitution, and declare that when someone gains it, they must leave the position they earned it in? This is exactly what all those regulations which exclude people from serving their country after they have prepared themselves to do it better mean.
The fourth bad effect of the exclusion would be that men would be banned from places where their presence could be very important for the public interest or safety in certain emergencies. No country has not, at some time, needed the help of certain people in certain situations, and it might even be said that it was necessary for that country’s political survival. It would be unwise to prevent a nation from using its own citizens in the best way for its needs and circumstances. Even if the person is not essential, it would still be bad to change the leader in a time of war or similar crisis, because they would lack experience and it could disrupt the administration.
The fifth bad effect of the exclusion would be that it would stop the administration from staying the same. If people change, it will cause policies to change too. We don’t need to be worried that things would stay the same too often if people have the option of changing, and we don’t need to stop people from keeping their trust in a leader if they think they can trust them and if they stay loyal they can avoid the bad outcomes of changing leaders and policies too much.
The following are some of the negatives that could come from the idea of not allowing someone in. These negatives are even more relevant to a situation where someone is not allowed back in at all, but even if someone is only sometimes not allowed back in, the same negatives still apply.
What benefits are promised to make up for the bad stuff? They are said to be: 1st. Magistrates have more freedom; 2nd. People have more protection. If they can’t be excluded forever, can they still have something to work for that they wouldn’t have to give up their independence for? Can they have friends or family they’d be willing to do something for, even if it means they’d make enemies? It’s hard to say if this would help or hurt their independence.
Regarding the second supposed advantage, there are many doubts about it, especially if the exclusion was to be permanent. In this case, a person with an irregular ambition, who could be a potential threat, would be very unwilling to give up a position where they had grown used to having power and prestige. If the person had been successful in gaining the approval of the people, they may feel that it is an unfair restriction on their right to show their support of their favorite. In some situations, this anger of the people combined with the ambition of the favorite could be more dangerous to freedom than the possibility of someone staying in office through the people’s voluntary votes, which is their constitutional right.
There is too much thought put into the idea of not allowing people who think they deserve to be trusted and respected to stay in office. The benefits of this are uncertain and can be argued either way. The bad parts are far more obvious and clear.
The Easy Federalist 
Leave a comment