The Federalist 73:
Written by Alexander Hamilton
This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.
The third factor for having a strong executive authority is to have enough money to support it. If not, the separation between the executive and legislative departments won’t mean much. The legislature could control the salary and benefits of the head of the executive department. They could make them obey their will by either not giving enough money or by offering too much. These words might mean more than what is meant. There are people who won’t let money change their actions, but not many people are like that. It’s usually true that controlling someone’s money means controlling what they do. If examples are needed to prove this point, there are some in this country of the executive being influenced by the money the legislature set up.
It’s not easy to say too much about the care that was taken with this subject in the proposed constitution. It says that the President of the United States will get a set amount of money for the time they are in office, and it won’t be changed during that time. They also can’t get any money from the US or any of its members. This is a really good idea because it means that the legislation can’t weaken the President or tempt them with money. They can’t be paid anything other than what the first act said. This way, the President will stay independent like the constitution planned.
The last thing we need for energy is competent powers. Now let’s talk about the powers that the President of the United States has.
The President has the power to reject bills passed by the two houses of the legislature. This means that the bills won’t become laws unless two-thirds of each house of the legislature agrees to them.
Legislators have a tendency to take away the rights and powers of other departments. The paper boundaries aren’t enough to protect them, so each needs their own constitutional protection. This means the executive needs either an absolute or qualified right to reject the acts of the legislative branch. Without this, the executive can be stripped of their authority or destroyed by a single vote. If the legislative body never tries to take away the executive’s rights, it’s still important for the executive to have a way to protect themselves.
The power in question has more than one purpose. It not only protects the executive branch, but it also helps make sure that laws made are not bad. It gives a good control over the legislative branch, which helps keep the community safe from any bad decisions that a majority of that branch may make due to their opinion or hurry.
It has been argued that it would not be right to give the executive leader control over the legislative body because it is not reasonable to think that one person would have more wisdom or goodness than a group of people.
Examining this observation shows that it is not very solid. It is not about the executive having more wisdom or virtue than the legislative, but that the legislative could make mistakes. The main reason to give the power to the executive is to protect them and to increase the chances of the community avoiding bad laws. Examining a measure multiple times and having different people look at it reduces the chances of errors. It is less likely that all parts of the government would have bad intentions at the same time than one part having bad intentions at a time.
It may be argued that the power to block bad laws includes the ability to stop good ones, and can be used for either purpose. But this is not a strong argument to those who understand the harm caused by constantly changing laws. They will think that having rules to keep laws the same is more likely to do good than harm. Even though a few good laws may be stopped, it is more than made up for by stopping bad laws.
Not only this, but the legislature in a free government has a lot of power, and the executive risks a lot if they oppose it. So, usually the negative would be used carefully. Usually there would be more of a chance to be seen as too scared than too reckless. Even a king of Great Britain, with all his authority, would hesitate to say no to both houses of parliament. He would try to stop a measure he didn’t like before it made it to him, so he would not have to say no and risk the people’s anger. It’s very unlikely that the king would use his power, unless it was very important or he had no other choice. In Britain, all educated people agree with this. It’s been a long time since the king refused something.
If a British monarch, who is very powerful and strongly protected, has doubts about using the power we are talking about, then we can expect the President of the United States to be even more careful. This is because the President is only in office for 4 years and has the authority of a completely democratic government.
It is clear that there could be a greater risk of not using power when needed than using it too much. This has been used as an argument against using it. But it doesn’t mean that it would never be used. When the rights of the executive or the public good is at stake, a person of reasonable strength would use their constitutional power to protect themselves. This courage could be spurred on by their own interests or by the support of their constituents. Even without lots of courage, someone would do the right thing in a dangerous situation. There are people who will stay committed to their duty no matter what.
The convention has come up with a plan to make it easier for the executive to use the power given to them. Instead of an absolute veto, they will have a qualified negative. This means that the executive can send a law back to be reconsidered and if more than one-third of each house agrees, the law can be rejected. This might be better than a direct and categorical negative because it might not make people mad. It is unlikely that two-thirds of both branches of the legislature will act against the executive at the same time. This power can be used without anyone noticing but it can stop people from doing wrong things.
This negative is held by a council in this area. It has been used a lot, and has been helpful. Even those who were against it when it was first made, now like it because of how useful it has been.
In another place, I have said that the convention gave preference to the Massachusetts model of the constitution rather than our state’s model. There may be two strong reasons for this. First, the judges, who are in charge of interpreting the laws, may be biased if they already gave an opinion in a previous review. Second, if the judges are often with the executive, they could be persuaded to accept the executive’s political views and form a dangerous mix between the executive and judiciary branches. It is important to keep the judges away from any job except interpreting the law. It is especially risky to put them in a place where they could be bribed or influenced by the executive.
The Federalist 74:
Written by Alexander Hamilton
This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.
The President of the United States is the commander in chief of the army, navy, and militia of the United States. This is clear and follows the same pattern of most state constitutions. War needs one person to direct the strength, and this is part of the executive authority.
The president has the power to ask any executive department officer to write their opinion on any topic related to their job. This seems to be something that would happen naturally because of their position.
The President has the right to grant pardons for offenses against the United States, except for cases of impeachment. People and good policy both say that the power of pardoning should not be limited or made difficult. The law of every country must be strict, and without the ability to make exceptions for people who are guilty, justice would be too harsh. It’s easier for one person to consider the reasons for lessening the punishment and be less likely to protect someone who deserves to be punished. On the other hand, when people are together, they may encourage each other to be more strict and not worry about being criticized for being too lenient. For these reasons, it’s better for one person to decide mercy than a group.
The president has the power to pardon people, but some think it should only be used for treason. It is argued that the legislature should decide if someone should be forgiven. However, it might be better to leave it to one person to decide. A single person can make a better judgement call in tough situations. Plus, if the crime is connected to many people, the legislature might be biased. On the other hand, if the crime is from one person, the legislature might be too hard. The main reason to let the president decide is in case of emergency. It might be too late if the legislature has to decide. It is not certain if the president can have this power legally in a limited government. Also, it might not be wise to show that people will be forgiven if they break the law.
The Federalist 75:
Written by Alexander Hamilton
This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.
The president is to have power, “by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur.”
This part of the plan has been criticized on different grounds. I firmly believe, however, that it is one of the best parts of the plan. Some people say that the president should be the only one to make treaties. Others believe that the Senate should have the exclusive power to do this. Another criticism comes from those who believe there are too few people making treaties. Some argue that the House of Representatives should be involved too. I think the observations about this part of the plan in a previous article should make it look good to a careful observer. Here, I’ll just add a few more remarks, mainly about the objections that were just mentioned.
When it comes to mixing powers, I will use the explanations I have already given about the real meaning of the rule this objection is based on. I assume it is not a problem to join the executive and Senate in the making of treaties. I also think that the special nature of this power shows why this union is a good idea. A lot of people who study government think that making treaties is an executive power, but it is not always easy to decide. The legislative authority is all about making laws or rules for the group. The executive is about carrying out the laws and protecting the group. Making treaties is different from either of these. It is about agreements between two countries which become laws because of trustworthiness. It looks like it is its own department and neither the legislative nor executive should do it. The qualities needed in foreign negotiations suggest that the executive should do it. But because it is so important and the treaties are like laws, it makes sense for the legislative body to be part of it too.
It is not safe to give the power to make treaties to an elected leader who only serves for four years. An elected leader may be tempted to do things that are not good for their country, like betraying it or using a foreign power to gain wealth or power. We cannot trust that an elected leader will be strong enough to resist these temptations. The past has not shown us that people can be trusted with such important matters as international relations. We should not risk it and give this power to an elected leader like the President of the United States.
Giving the power of treaty-making to the Senate alone would mean giving up the benefits of the President’s help in foreign negotiations. The Senate could choose to use him, but they could also choose not to. The Senate’s representatives wouldn’t have the same respect and power with foreign countries like the President would. This would cause the country to lose out on potential advantages and the people would be less safe. It’s too risky to trust only the President with this power, but it’s clear that both the President and the Senate together would make the country more secure than either one alone. People who have thought about it can be sure that the President will always be a person who can help make wise and honest treaties.
The ideas mentioned before do not support the idea of the House of Representatives getting involved in forming treaties. This is because the House is too large and its members are always changing. This means they could not have the qualities needed to do this job well, like knowledge of foreign politics, staying focused, being sensitive to national character, being decisive, and being quick. The process of getting a treaty approved by the House would also be very hard and expensive. All of this makes the idea a bad one.
The only issue left to be discussed is the idea of using two-thirds of all the senators instead of two-thirds of those present. We’ve seen that any rule that needs more than a majority of a group to make decisions often makes it harder to run the government. It can even make the majority’s opinion weaker than the minority’s. We think the convention did the right thing by trying to make sure the majority of people is heard. If two-thirds of the senators were needed, it would often be the same as needing everyone to agree. History shows this doesn’t work. We can see this in the Roman tribuneship, Polish diet, and Netherlands’ States General. We don’t need to look any further than our own country for proof.
Requiring a certain amount of the whole body would not be better for the advantages of a large agency than only requiring a certain amount of those present. This would make it harder for the minority to get their resolutions passed and would decrease the motivation for people to show up. The other option, having the capacity depend on the amount of people present, would have the opposite effect. It would keep the body whole, and the resolutions would be decided by a similar amount of people. In our current system, two people usually represent one state, so Congress has fewer people than the proposed Senate. Also, if there is only one person from a state, their vote is not counted. This means that in the Senate, where members vote individually, there will likely be the same amount of active voices as in Congress. The people of America will have more security with the new Constitution because of the President’s help, and because the Senate will likely get bigger with new states. Having too many people in the Senate would not be good for properly using the power of making treaties.
The Federalist 76:
Written by Alexander Hamilton
This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.
The president has the power to pick ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, judges of the Supreme Court and other officers of the United States. The Congress can also decide if they want the president to pick lower officers, or have the courts or the heads of departments decide instead. The president also has the power to choose people for jobs that open up when the Senate is not in session. These jobs will end when the Senate’s next session is over.
It has been said before that the best way to measure the quality of a government is to look at the people it chooses to lead it. If this is true, then the way the United States chooses its officers is something special. It is a great plan that makes it easier to find good people to fill the important offices of the country. This is very important because it will decide the success of the government’s administration.
It is clear that the power of appointment should not be given to many people. This would be too difficult to manage. It should either be given to one person or to a small group of people. If it is given to a group, it should be a select group so that they can work together properly. It is impossible for the people as a whole to do this because it would take too much time and there would likely be a lot of arguing. So, any discussion about a group of people in the future should be about a select group.
People who have thought about the issue or paid attention to what has been said about choosing a president will probably agree there is a good chance of having a president with some ability. Starting from this point, I think it is better to have one person with good judgment choose people for a job rather than a group of people with equal or even better judgment.
One person being responsible for the job will lead to them feeling a stronger sense of duty and paying more attention to their reputation. They will have fewer personal feelings to take into account when making decisions, unlike a group of people who could each have their own personal attachments. Personal feelings, whether they be our own or others, can make people act irrationally, so when a group of people are making a decision these feelings can come into play. This can lead to a victory for one group or a compromise between the two, but either way the person’s actual qualifications for the job might not be taken into account. Instead, what will be looked at are the qualities that will benefit the group or the interests of the two parties, rather than the best interests of the public.
Many critics have argued that the president should be the only one to appoint people to the federal government. However, it is easy to see that the power to nominate someone to an office (which the president would have) is actually just as good as the power to appoint. When nominating someone, the president would use his judgement to find the right person for the job and then the Senate would approve. This means that the president would be responsible for the appointment just like if he actually appointed them. Therefore, it can be seen that there is no difference between nominating and appointing. Every person appointed would be the president’s choice.
His nomination may be rejected, but only to make room for another one he will make. It is unlikely that his nomination will be denied very often. The Senate cannot know that the person they prefer will be chosen in a later nomination. Plus, denying his nomination could put a bad label on the person rejected, and it could look like the president made a bad decision. So, it is unlikely that the Senate will deny his nomination unless there are serious reasons why they should.
Why do we need the Senate to cooperate? I answer that it’s important because it will help stop the President from only hiring people they like or who they’re related to. Plus, it will make the administration more reliable.
It is easy to understand that a person who has the only power to give out jobs would be more likely to pick someone they know or like. If they had to answer to a different group, they would be more careful when choosing someone. If they picked someone who didn’t fit the job, they would look bad. They would also be embarrassed and afraid to pick someone just because they come from the same state or are related to them. They wouldn’t want to choose someone who will just do whatever they say.
It is said that the president can get the Senate to agree with his ideas because of the power of nomination. But this idea that everybody is bad is wrong. The idea of giving power to others suggests that there are people who are honest and can be trusted. History shows this to be true, even in corrupt governments. The British House of Commons has been accused of being corrupt and there is no doubt that this is true to some extent. But it is also true that there is a large number of independent and public spirited people, who have a strong influence. So, it is possible that the president might be able to influence some people in the Senate, but it is unlikely that he could buy off all of them. Someone who looks at human nature realistically, without overstating either its good or bad points, can be sure that it won’t be possible for the president to get the majority of the Senate to agree with him and that the need for the Senate’s approval of appointments will be a strong way of controlling the president. To make sure the president can’t influence the legislature, the Constitution says that no senator or representative can be given a government job while they are in office and that no one with a government job can be a member of either house while they have the job.
The Federalist 77:
Written by Alexander Hamilton
This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.
It has been said that one good thing about the Senate being involved in appointing people to jobs is that it would make the government more stable. It would be harder for a new president to get rid of someone in a job and put someone else in if they liked them better, because the Senate would have to agree to it. People who understand how important it is to have a steady administration will understand how great it is that the Senate can decide if people stay or go in their jobs, since they usually stay the same longer than anyone else in the government.
Some people have argued that when the president and the senate come together in the appointment process, it could give the president too much power over the senate. Others have argued that it could have the opposite effect. This shows that neither of these ideas are true.
To put it simply, saying the president would have too much power over the senate is wrong. It’s obvious that the president’s power to appoint people would give him more control than if he just had the power to nominate people who had to be approved by the senate.
Let’s take a look at the opposite of the idea that the Senate would influence the Executive. It’s hard to give an exact answer because it’s not clear what’s meant. How will the Senate influence the Executive? What will it be about? Influencing someone usually means giving them something good. But how can the Senate give the President something good by using its power to say no? It’s possible that the President could be happy if the Senate agreed with his choices, but it’s not likely to happen very often. Plus, the power to start giving out honors and rewards is more likely to be used than the power to stop them. If by influencing the President we mean restraining him, then it looks like a good idea. We know that the restraint will be good and it won’t take away any of the good that comes from having an Executive who is not controlled. The right to nominate someone will give all the good without any of the bad.
When comparing the plan to appoint officers of the proposed government with the one established by the state’s constitution, the former is clearly better. The power to nominate is given to the executive. If each nomination is approved by the whole branch of the legislature, the people will know who did what in the appointment process. If a bad nomination is made, all the blame will be on the president alone. If a good nomination is rejected, the senate will be responsible for it, which will make the situation even worse. If a bad appointment is made, both the executive and the senate will share the shame.
In this state, the way appointments are made is different. The council of appointment has three to five people, and the governor is always one of them. They meet in private and make the appointments. The governor claims the right to nominate someone based on what is written in the constitution, but no one knows how or when he does it. If it’s a bad appointment, no one can be blamed because it’s not clear who chose them. People can only guess if the governor is picking the best people for the job or if he’s just picking people who support him. It’s a mystery.
A council of appointment would be a place where plots and schemes could happen. Too many people would cost too much money, so it would be hard to keep the group small. Each member would want to help their friends, so it would be like trading votes and jobs. One person could get what they want, but not a dozen or twenty. This would make it so most jobs would only go to a few families. If members of the council changed often, it would cause a lot of problems. The council would also be easily influenced by the executive because there are less people and they wouldn’t be watched as much. Overall, this council would be expensive, lead to favoritism, and make the government less stable and secure. Even though it has been suggested as an improvement to the proposed constitution, it would actually do more harm than good.
I can’t finish this topic without talking about a scheme that has some supporters, but not many. It’s about giving the House of Representatives the power to make appointments. I won’t say too much about this, since I don’t think it will get much support. A group that changes so often and is so big can’t be trusted to use this power. It would be bad if the House had this power since it could have three or four hundred people in it in fifty years. This would ruin the stability of the executive and senate. Most states don’t do this in their local governments, so we should reject this idea.
The executive has the power to give Congress information about the state of the nation, suggest measures that he or she thinks are necessary, bring Congress together or just one branch in special occasions, end meetings when Congress can’t agree on when to end, receive ambassadors and other public ministers, make sure laws are obeyed, and give out commissions to all the officers of the United States.
Some people have said that the power to convene either house of the legislature, and to receive ambassadors is too much power. But, these objections do not make much sense. We can see a good reason for the power to convene the senate. That’s because the senate has the power to approve treaties, and so it might be necessary to call it together to do that. We already know the answer to receiving ambassadors because of what was said in a previous paper.
We have now finished a survey of the executive department’s structure and powers. I tried to explain how it combines as much as possible with republican principles. The question left is does it also combine the requisites for safety in the republican sense? Like having a dependence on the people and responsibility? We can answer that from the investigation of its other characteristics. For example, the president is chosen by the people every four years. They can also impeach them, take away their job, and even punish them by taking away their life and estate. But the plan of the convention has even more ways to protect the public security. In cases where the executive authority could be abused, the president would be controlled by the legislative body. What more do we need?
The Easy Federalist 
Leave a comment