Hamilton's Constitutional Principles: A Founding Father's Vision

In Federalist No. 70, titled The Executive Department Further Considered, Alexander Hamilton argues that a unitary executive is consistent with a republican form of government. Hamilton defends a single executive as far more safe because wherever two or more persons are engaged in any common…pursuit, there is always danger of a difference of opinion. Hamilton also cites an influential but lesser-known writer, Jean-Louis de Lolme, to support his argument that a unitary executive will have the greatest accountability to the people. Hamilton concludes the essay by reminding readers that the UNITY of the executive of this State was one of the best of the distinguishing features of our constitution.

Explore related products

Liberty, Order, and Justice: An Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government

$11.44 $14.5

The Federalist Papers (Signet Classics)

$7.23 $8.95

The Oldest Constitutional Question: Enumeration and Federal Power

$42.83 $49.95

Federalism in the EU Constitutional Order of States: An Uncommon Principle (European and National Constitutional Law Series)

$95

Constitution of the United States (Books of American Wisdom)

$9.25 $9.95

Federalism for Unity and Minorities’ Protection: A Comparative Study on Constitutional Principles and their Practical Implications: US, India and Ethiopia

$77

Unity of the executive branch

The concept of a "unitary executive" or "unitary executive theory" is a constitutional principle that holds that the President of the United States has sole authority and control over the executive branch of the government. The theory is based on the Vesting Clause of Article II of the Constitution, which states that "The executive Power [of the United States] shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Proponents of the unitary executive theory argue that this clause grants the President all of the federal executive power, not just some of it. They contend that the President has the power to supervise and control all executive branch personnel, including the ability to hire and fire them at will. This theory has been used to justify expanded presidential power and the removal of checks and balances on executive authority.

The unitary executive theory has sparked significant debate and controversy. Critics argue that it does not align with the Constitution, as the President shares executive powers with other branches of government, such as the Senate, which is involved in treaty-making and appointing principal officers. Additionally, there are concerns that a unitary executive could lead to more corruption, less qualified employees, and democratic backsliding.

The term "unitary executive" dates back to the Reagan administration, which first cited the theory. However, supporters of the theory argue that it is rooted in the founding of the United States and the intent of the executive branch's creation. Alexander Hamilton, writing under the pseudonym "Pacificus", defended President George Washington's declaration of neutrality in the French Revolution, citing the implicit executive authority to set and conduct foreign policy. Hamilton also observed in the Federalist Papers that the president should be directly elected and be a single leader to enable swift and energetic action.

While the unitary executive theory has been embraced by some Supreme Court justices and presidential administrations, it remains a subject of disagreement and debate, with legal scholars and historians questioning its constitutionality and practical implications.

Energy in the executive

In Federalist No. 70, Alexander Hamilton writes about the importance of a unitary executive, arguing that "energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government". Hamilton's conception of "energy in the executive" has several key ingredients: unity, duration, adequate provision for its support, and competent powers.

Firstly, unity refers to the idea that a single executive is more conducive to energy than a group of leaders. Hamilton argues that a unitary executive leads to greater decision-making, activity, secrecy, and dispatch, as there is no risk of dissension or disagreement between multiple leaders. A single executive is also more accountable to the people, as they cannot blame council members for their failings.

Secondly, duration refers to the length of time an executive is in office. Hamilton argues that a longer duration in office leads to greater energy in the executive, as it provides stability and continuity in the administration.

Thirdly, adequate provision for its support refers to the need for the executive to have sufficient resources and authority to carry out their duties effectively. This includes financial support, such as a presidential salary, to attract capable and honest individuals to the office.

Lastly, competent powers refer to the executive's ability to exercise their constitutional powers independently and responsibly. Hamilton emphasizes the importance of a vigorous executive that can protect the community, administer the laws, and secure liberty.

Hamilton's arguments for "energy in the executive" were made in the context of the debate between a singular or plural executive during the formation of the U.S. Constitution. Hamilton's vision of a strong and energetic executive influenced the constitutional foundations of executive power, particularly in Article II, which grants expansive powers to the President of the United States.

Safety in the republican sense

In Federalist No. 70, Alexander Hamilton discusses the necessity of an energetic executive branch to protect liberty and self-government. He argues that a vigorous executive is essential to the protection of the community, the steady administration of laws, and the security of liberty.

Hamilton asks whether the presidency contains the "requisites to safety, in a republican sense, a due dependence on the people, a due responsibility." He identifies the ingredients that constitute safety in the republican sense as:

• A due dependence on the people
• A due responsibility

Hamilton's concept of "safety in a republican sense" refers to the belief that the executive branch should be accountable to the people and uphold the principles of justice and liberty. This includes the idea that the president should be subject to reelection, impeachment, and criminal punishment, ensuring that they remain on equal footing with their fellow citizens under the law.

Hamilton's concerns about "safety in a republican sense" reflect his understanding of republicanism and the potential dangers of executive power. He emphasizes the importance of a single executive, arguing that power is safer in the hands of one person, making it easier to confine and providing a single object for the watchfulness of the people.

In conclusion, Hamilton's notion of "safety in the republican sense" emphasizes the need for a strong executive that is accountable to the people and upholds the principles of justice and liberty. This concept reflects his understanding of republicanism and the importance of safeguarding against the potential abuses of power.

Explore related products

Irreconcilable Founders: Spencer Roane, John Marshall, and the Nature of America’s Constitutional Republic

$23.2 $45

Principles and Practice of American Politics: Classic and Contemporary Readings

$103.11

The Constitutional Principles of Thomas Jefferson

$31.94

Constitutional Interpretations

$2.09 $21.4

Constitutional Cornerstones: The Spirit of Self-Governance: How America's Core Principles Continue to Shape Democracy and the Impact of Equality and Liberty

$8.99 $15.99

Hamilton Field Guide: Men’s Non-Electric Wristwatches 1917–1969

$64.95

The utility of the union

Alexander Hamilton was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States and played an instrumental role in drafting and gaining support for the U.S. Constitution. He, along with James Madison and Jay, wrote the Federalist Papers, a series of newspaper editorials that appeared in the American colonies between 1787 and 1789, urging the ratification of the new Constitution.

One of the Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 12, also known as "The Utility of the Union in Respect to Revenue", addresses the benefits of forming a union for political and economic prosperity. Hamilton argues that a consistent and increasing revenue stream is essential for maintaining political independence. He asserts that the best way to achieve this is by taxing consumption, especially imports, rather than imposing direct taxes on income or land, which he considers impractical and detrimental to the nation's agrarian livelihood.

Hamilton emphasizes that a unified system of duties across all states, collected and enforced by the federal government, would improve revenue collection efficiency and reduce fraud. He believes that expanding commerce is the key to increasing the revenue stream, which, in turn, would enhance the nation's wealth and make tax payment easier.

In Federalist No. 12, Hamilton also discusses the role of the federal government in encouraging the expansion of commerce. While he advocates for robust commerce, he would likely disagree with the modern practice of the government actively participating in commerce rather than merely facilitating it.

In Federalist No. 11, Hamilton further emphasizes the importance of the Union, particularly in commercial and foreign relations. He suggests that a unified America can exert influence over European nations and their colonies in America, and that a federal navy would strengthen the country's position in the West Indies. Hamilton argues that a strong Union will enable the nation to dictate the terms of its relationship with Europe and protect its commerce from interference by other nations.

The insufficiency of the present confederation

The Articles of Confederation gave Congress limited authority, making it dependent on the voluntary agreement of the states to raise funds, regulate trade, or conduct foreign policy. This lack of authority resulted in states often disregarding Congress's suggestions and focusing more on their own state politics and personal affairs. The inability of Congress to effectively govern led to a lack of respect and support from the state governments, who were determined to maintain their power.

The need for a stronger government became evident when Congress struggled to ratify the Treaty of Paris, which formally ended America's war with Great Britain. A quorum of nine states was required, but due to lackadaisical attendance, Congress was unable to act promptly, highlighting the inefficiency of the current system.

The delinquencies of the states and their failure to comply with the requisitions of the Union brought the national government to a standstill. This resulted in a need for a more substantial federal government, as outlined in Federalist No. 15, to address the insufficiencies of the present confederation and establish a more effective and energetic government.

Frequently asked questions