banner



Home  ›  Main Point Of Federalist 70

Main Point Of Federalist 70

Written By Monday, October 24, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Federalist Paper by Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton, author of Federalist No. lxx

Federalist No. 70, titled "The Executive Section Further Considered", is an essay written by Alexander Hamilton arguing for a single, robust executive provided for in the Usa Constitution.[ane] [two] [three] [iv] [5] [vi] [7] [8] [nine] It was originally published on March 15, 1788 in The New York Packet under the pseudonym Publius as part of The Federalist Papers and as the fourth in Hamilton's series of eleven essays discussing executive ability.[10]

Hamilton argues that unity in the executive branch is a master ingredient for both energy and rubber.[two] [vii] [8] Free energy arises from the proceedings of a unmarried person, characterized by, "decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch," while safety arises from the unitary executive'south unconcealed accountability to the people.[4] [5] [7] [8] [xi]

Historical and philosophical influences [edit]

Jean-Louis De Lolme, quoted in Federalist No. lxx as maxim, "the executive power is more hands confined when it is ONE"

Before ratifying the Constitution in 1787, the thirteen states were leap by the Articles of Confederation, which authorized the Congress of the Confederation to conduct foreign affairs and granted sovereignty to the states.[12] By 1779, both Congress and u.s.a. had accumulated considerable debt from the Revolutionary War, but the Articles of Confederation denied Congress the powers of tax and regulation of foreign and interstate commerce.[1] [13] Alexander Hamilton, along with many other Framers, believed the solution to this and bug of federal law enforcement could be solved with a strong general authorities.[i] [14] [15]

Alexander Hamilton greatly admired the British monarchy, and sought to create a similarly strong unitary executive in the United States.[16] [17] [eighteen] 1 of the major influences on his thinking was political theorist, Jean-Louis de Lolme who praised the English language monarchy for existence "sufficiently independent and sufficiently controlled."[17] [nineteen] In Federalist No. 70, Hamilton cites De Lolme to support his argument that a unitary executive will have the greatest accountability to the people.[20] Hamilton was as well inspired past William Blackstone and John Locke, who favored an executive who would human activity on his own prerogative while maintaining respect for constitutional obligations.[21] [22] Montesquieu, Machiavelli, and Aristotle, all of whom argued for strength in the executive, also served every bit inspiration for the arguments in Federalist No. 70.[21] [22] In fact, Hamilton's phone call for free energy in the executive, as described in Federalist No. lxx, mirrors Montesquieu'southward preference for a "vigor" in the executive.[23] [24]

During the Constitutional Convention in May 1787, Hamilton proposed a plan of government, dubbed the "British Plan," featuring a powerful unitary executive serving for life, or during good beliefs.[nineteen] [25] [26] [27] Though this plan was rejected, James Wilson's proposal for a unitary executive, which Hamilton supported, was upheld with a vote of 7 to three.[28] Equally part of the Federalists' endeavour to encourage the ratification of the Constitution, Hamilton published Federalist No. lxx to convince the states of the necessity of unity in the executive co-operative.[twenty]

Hamilton'due south arguments for a unitary executive [edit]

Federalist No. 70 argues in favor of the unitary executive created past Commodity 2 of the United States Constitution.[ane] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Co-ordinate to Alexander Hamilton, a unitary executive is necessary to:

  • ensure accountability in government
  • enable the president to defend against legislative encroachments on his ability
  • ensure "energy" in the executive.[ii] [7] [eight]

Hamilton argues that a unitary executive structure volition best permit purpose, management, and flexibility in the executive branch—especially necessary during times of emergency and warfare.[4] [5] [11] [29] [thirty] [31] [32]

Accountability [edit]

According to Hamilton, a unitary executive is best-suited to promoting accountability in government because it is easier to point arraign at one person than to distinguish fault among members of a grouping.[v] [7] [8] [11] Because a unitary executive cannot "cloak" his failings by blaming council members, he has a strong incentive towards skillful behavior in function.[ii] [half dozen] [11] Accountability, made easier by the existence of a unitary executive, thus promotes effective and representative governance.[ii] [5] [6]

Hamilton bolsters his argument past challenge that misconduct and disagreements among members of the council of Rome contributed to the Empire's decline.[3] [33] He warns at the terminate of Federalist No. 70 that America should be more agape of reproducing the plural executive structure of Rome than of the "ambition of a unmarried individual."[2]

Defense force against encroachments [edit]

Beyond supporting a unitary executive, Hamilton recommends forcefulness in the executive branch.[v] [7] [34] Hamilton justifies executive forcefulness by claiming that the deadening-moving Congress, a body designed for deliberation, will be best-balanced by a quick and decisive executive.[seven] [34] Hamilton besides maintains that governmental residual can only be achieved if each branch of government (including the executive branch) has enough autonomous ability such that tyranny of one branch over the others cannot occur.[5] [7] [35]

Free energy [edit]

Alexander Hamilton writes that energy in the executive is "the leading character in the definition of good government."[2] [4] [36] Some scholars equate Hamiltonian "energy" to presidential "activeness," while others draw energy as a president'southward eagerness to act on the behalf on his constituents.[six] [7] [37]

In Federalist No. 70, Hamilton lists four ingredients that constitute this energy:

  • unity
  • elapsing
  • an acceptable provision for its support (salary)
  • competent powers [ii] [five]

Unity [edit]

Hamilton's core argument revolves around unity in the executive, meaning the Constitution's vesting of executive power in a unmarried president by Article II of the United States Constitution.[1] [6] [38] [39] [40] His argument as well centers upon unity's promotion of executive energy.[2] [5] [6] [36] [forty] In Federalist No. 70, Alexander Hamilton writes:

Those politicians and statesmen who have been the most celebrated for the soundness of their principles and for the justice of their views, accept declared in favor of a single Executive....They have with great propriety, considered energy as the most necessary qualification (of the former) and accept regarded this as most applicative to power in a unmarried mitt...[2]

Co-ordinate to Hamilton, unity contributes to free energy by permitting necessary "conclusion, activity, secrecy, and acceleration" in the executive branch.[2] [v] [six] [36] [xl] At the same time, a unitary executive is incentivized to deed on behalf of his constituents.[2] [7] Every bit scholar Steven Calabresi writes, "a unitary executive would both cause power and energy to accrue to the office and facilitate public accountability for and control over how that ability and energy was exercised."[7]

Duration [edit]

Hamilton also makes the instance for elapsing, pregnant a presidential term long enough to promote stability in the regime.[2] [v] While Hamilton elaborates on the importance of duration in Federalist No. 73, he argues briefly in Federalist No. seventy that the prospect of more time in office will motivate a president to act in concert with the views of the public.[ii] [6] [7]

Support [edit]

Hamiltonian support tin be divers as a presidential salary, which insulates authorities officials from abuse by attracting capable, honest men to office.[2] [5] [41] According to Hamilton, public service does not provide men with fame or glory, so ample pay is necessary to attract talented politicians.[2] [41] Hamilton farther expands upon his arguments for executive back up in his essay Federalist No. 73.[2]

Competent powers [edit]

The President'due south competent powers, or his powers guaranteed by the Constitution, are mentioned in Federalist No. 70 and more fully discussed in Federalist No. 73 in the context of executive and legislative interactions, specifically the executive veto power.[two] Hamilton argues that the executive veto provides stability past preventing "the excess of code" [ii] [42] and that the executive veto and judicial review will "shield...the executive" from legislative misbehavior.[2] [43] This argument is tied to Madison's praise of the separation of powers in Federalist No. 51, which he contends will permit the president to execute the laws and act as commander in-chief without fear of legislative encroachment on his powers.[2] [43]

Scholars have differing views on the president'south competent powers.[ane] [half dozen] [38] [39] [forty] Proponents of the Unitary Executive Theory assert that all executive power is vested in the president, and that the President has "unilateral authority, impervious to congressional or judicial scrutiny."[39] [44] [45] [46] Conversely, others read Article II of the United States Constitution as an "empty grant" that does not explicitly give the President the power to execute the laws.[38] [46] [47]

Contemporaneous opposition to the unitary executive [edit]

After Independence [edit]

The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 provides for a Supreme Executive Council.

Resistance to the unitary executive began well before the emergence of the Anti-Federalist Papers.[48] [49] After the Declaration of Independence in 1776, eleven of the thirteen states established constitutions to supervene upon their lease governments.[49] In a reaction to colonial dominion, most of these constitutions were primarily concerned with a declaration of rights and weakening executive power.[48] With the exception of New York, all of these states formed executive councils appointed by their respective legislatures.[49]

Virginia'due south Constitution of 1776 provided for an executive and an eight-member privy quango elected by ballot in the bicameral legislature.[49] It mandated that the privy council be involved in nearly all executive decisions:

Let a Privy Council, or Quango of State, consisting of eight members, exist chosen by articulation election of both Houses of Assembly, promiscuously from their members, or the people at big, to assist in the assistants of authorities. Let the Governour be President of this Council…[49]

Pennsylvania's 1776 Constitution, which lasted until 1790, provided for a Supreme Executive Council consisting of twelve members chosen by popular ballot.[49] The quango and the unicameral legislature would elect a president from the members of the council, but the president would hold little potency over the council even in regards to war machine power.[48] [49]

The Constitutional Convention [edit]

During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, several delegates opposed the unitary executive first recommended by James Wilson, and supported by Hamilton.[28] [fifty] [51] Both Charles Pinckney of Due south Carolina and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania had suggested advisory councils that would serve every bit a support rather than a check on the executive.[50] Upon an invitation to dissent from Benjamin Franklin, who served every bit President of Pennsylvania's executive council, Roger Sherman of Connecticut stated his preference for the executive to be appointed by and direct accountable to the legislature, regardless of whether it was to be unitary or plural.[28] [51] Before the vote to approve the unitary executive, Sherman also commented that advisory councils in the bulk of the states and even in Great United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland served to make the executive adequate to the people.[28]

Edmund Randolph, who had presented the Virginia Program, was the most outspoken opponent of the unitary executive, arguing that information technology would be unpopular with the people and could easily go monarchical.[28] [51] He warned confronting using the British government equally a model for the Constitution, noting that energy, dispatch, and responsibility could be plant in 3 men drawn from three different regions of the country just likewise as in one.[28] [51] The single executive was all the same approved by a vote of seven to 3.[28]

Later on in the Convention, Hugh Williamson of N Carolina stated his preference for Randolph's suggestion that executive power be shared betwixt iii men representing three regions into which united states of america would be divided.[51] He argued that this triumvirate would be the best style to assure that neither the Northern nor the Southern states' interests would be sacrificed at the expense of the others'.[51]

The Anti-Federalist Papers and opposition to the Constitution [edit]

George Mason, considered one of the Founding Fathers, recommended a privy council for the executive branch.

While most of the Anti-Federalists' arguments did not concern the presidency, some Anti-Federalist publications did straight competition Hamilton's position in Federalist lxx for unity in the executive co-operative.[52] [53]

In response to the exclusion of an executive council in the Constitution, Bricklayer published his "Objections to the Constitution" on November 22, 1787 in the Virginia Journal.[54] In this manuscript, originally written on the back of an early draft of the Constitution, Mason warned that the lack of a council would make for an unadvised president, who would deed inside the interests of friends, rather than the people at big:[54]

The President of the United states of america has no Constitutional Council, a thing unknown in any safe and regular regime. He will therefore be unsupported by proper information and communication, and will generally be directed by minions and favorites...[54]

Richard Henry Lee, some other prominent Anti-Federalist, exchanged letters with Mason, in which he too expressed concern about the unitary executive, supporting the constitutional addition of a privy quango.[52] [55] In Anti-Federalist No. 74, titled "The President as a Military King," Philadelphiensis (likely, Benjamin Workman) wrote primarily confronting the president's military powers, just added that the lack of a constitutional executive quango would add to the danger of a powerful presidency:

And to consummate his uncontrolled sway, [the President] is neither restrained nor assisted by a privy council, which is a novelty in government. I challenge the politicians of the whole continent to discover in any period of history a monarch more absolute. . . .[56]

On December 18, 1787, subsequently the Convention of Pennsylvania, which ultimately ratified the Constitution, the minority published its reasons for dissent to its constituents.[57] In this address, written almost probable by Samuel Bryan and signed past twenty-one members of the minority, the lack of an executive quango is enumerated equally the 12th of fourteen reasons for dissent:

12. That the legislative, executive, and judicial powers be kept carve up; and to this finish that a constitutional council be appointed, to advise and assist the president, who shall be responsible for the advice they give, hereby the senators would be relieved from almost constant attendance; and likewise that the judges be made completely independent.[57]

Though he was in England at the time of the Anti-Federalist Papers, Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet Mutual Sense served as motivation for independence from British rule during the American Revolution, too opposed the unitary executive.[58] While this position was already evidenced from his role every bit Clerk to the Pennsylvania Assembly during the writing of Pennsylvania's 1776 Constitution,[59] he clearly stated it in a alphabetic character to George Washington in 1796.[58] In this letter, Paine argued for a plural executive on the grounds that a unitary executive would get head of a political party and that a republic should non debase itself by obeying an individual.[58]

Hamilton'southward rebuttals to contemporaneous counterarguments [edit]

In Federalist No. lxx, Alexander Hamilton not only lays down an argument for a unitary executive, but as well provides rebuttals to contemporaneous counterarguments in favor of a plural executive.[two] Hamilton employs historical examples and the rhetoric of mutual sense to warn the American people of the weaknesses of a plural executive structure.[3]

Unitary executive as a monarch [edit]

Hamilton anticipates and refutes the argument that a unitary executive is too like to the British monarchy.[37] Some academics have noted that Hamilton viewed the British monarchy as a superior system of government and potential model\viding (or not providing) its consent for appointments and treaties.[5]

Governance by as well few [edit]

Hamilton similarly conceptualize and refutes the counterargument that more opinions in government lead to better decision-making.[2] [5] [xi] In rejecting this view, Hamilton writes that a plural executive would really "conceal faults and destroy responsibility" [ii] and be a "clog" to the system.[ii] [11] He argues in Federalist No. 70 that a plural executive leads to a lack of accountability because there is no single person to arraign for misconduct.[5] [11] Furthermore, conclusion making becomes hard because a council may suggest an calendar opposite to that of the executive. Hamilton reminds the public that in times of warfare especially, the executive must non be slowed down past deliberation and disagreements.[v] [7] [11] [34] Finally, he reminds America that a unitary executive structure promotes free energy in the executive and that "duration" of the presidential term gives the executive a strong incentive to make policy in conformity with public stance.[6] [vii] [11] The executive volition exist held answerable to his constituents and human activity with "due dependence" and "due responsibleness."[2] He claims that the two will foster liberty and "safety in the republican sense."[2] [v] [7] [8] [11] [60]

Applications and mod relevance [edit]

Historical applications [edit]

Because Federalist No. 70 argues for a strong, unitary executive, it has frequently been used every bit a justification for expanding executive and presidential power, specially during times of national emergency.[five] [29] [30] [31] [32] For instance, scholars have argued that Federalist No. 70 influenced:

  • George Washington's annunciation of neutrality towards Britain and France without Congressional Consent [32]
  • Abraham Lincoln'due south decision to use executive authority to suspend Habeas Corpus and create a naval blockade without congressional approval during the American ceremonious war[5] [61]
  • Theodore Roosevelt's resolution to arbitrate in the Coal Strike of 1902.[xviii]
  • Woodrow Wilson's heavy use of executive ability during and in the aftermath of World War I.[eighteen]

The War on Terror [edit]

Federalist No.70 as a justification for executive power [edit]

John Yoo, legal advisor to the George W. Bush administration, used Federalist No.70 to defend the President's foreign policy

Federalist No. seventy'due south arguments for an energetic, unitary executive are often cited in the context of national security.[29] [62] Later 9/11, executive ability and secrecy took on a more central role in the pursuit of national security.[62] In this regard, members of the mail service 9/eleven United States Department of Justice have argued that foreign policy is almost finer conducted with a single hand, meaning that Congress should defer to the president's authorisation.[29]

John Yoo, legal advisor to the Bush administration, has explicitly invoked Federalist No. 70 in his support for executive power over strange policy.[29] Referencing Hamilton, Yoo has claimed that "the centralization of authority in the President is particularly crucial in matters of national defense, state of war, and foreign policy, where a unitary executive tin can evaluate threats, consider policy choices, and mobilize national resources with a speed and free energy that is far superior to any other branch."[29] Yoo has also cited Federalist No. 70 in his support of the President's right to unilaterally conduct operations confronting terrorists without congressional consent.[29] [31] He claims that this ability applies to operations against both individuals and states.[29] [31] At least one scholar has besides argued that, because the president has the about access to national security information, simply the president can know when the War on Terror is over and no longer mandates an expansive executive dominance.[30]

President George W. Bush explicitly invoked the discourse of Federalist No. lxx in declaring that he was immune to operate exterior of the police when information technology conflicted with his prerogatives equally the head of "the unitary executive branch."[five] [63] [64] For example, when signing the 2005 Detainee Handling Act, Bush applied Hamilton's unitary executive theory to merits the right to piece of work outside the provisions of the Act when they conflicted with his responsibilities every bit Commander in Chief.[63] [64]

President Obama has also used signing statements to aggrandize his executive power, specifically by issuing a 2011 argument on an omnibus yr-cease spending bill.[64] [65] It has been speculated that this statement was made to nullify provisions of the pecker that limited Obama's ability to bargain with prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, thus expanding Obama'southward executive power.[65] This action has been explicitly compared to Bush's 2005 signing of the Detainee Treatment Human action.[65]

Controversy [edit]

Not all scholars agree that Federalist No. seventy justifies the role that the President has played in the state of war on terror upward to this point.[5] Some scholars contend that President Bush's foreign policy decisions exceeded his presidential powers granted by the Constitution.[5] [66] [67] [68] Further, critics of the Bush-league Assistants argue that whatever executive, equally envisioned by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. lxx, must act inside the limits imposed by other provisions of the United states of america Constitution[five] [66] [67] [68] and that the concept of the unitary executive does not allow the president to work outside laws passed by Congress, fifty-fifty when they conflict with national security interests.[63] [68] These critics debate that President Bush could accept asked Congress to amend existing police force or retroactively obtain warrants for surveillance and that he violated the constitution when he did not.[5] [67] [68] President Obama has been similarly criticized for operating outside the law, despite statements at the get-go of his presidency which showed a want to limit the use of signing statements to aggrandize executive power.[64] [69] [70]

I of Hamilton'due south master arguments for a unitary executive was that information technology increases accountability for executive action, thereby protecting liberty.[5] [7] [eight] [xi] [60] Many have argued that the Bush-league administration's and Obama administration's use of secrecy and unilateral executive action has violated American liberty.[71] [72] [73] [74] One scholar, James Pffifner, claims that if Hamilton were alive today, he would meliorate Federalist No. lxx to say that the "energy of the executive needs to be counterbalanced by the 'deliberation and wisdom that just the legislature tin can provide.'"[5]

Judicial applications [edit]

Executive unity [edit]

Recently, Federalist No. 70 has go associated with Unitary Executive Theory, and has been invoked to back up the claim that the president should have primary responsibility over the entire executive branch.[39] This theory was peculiarly relevant to Justice Antonin Scalia'south 1988 dissent in the Supreme Court Case Morrison five. Olson, in which he argued that an investigation of the executive co-operative by independent counsel was unconstitutional because criminal prosecution was purely an executive power, held in its entirety by the president.[75] Scalia also cited Federalist No. 70 in his decision on Printz v. U.s.. Printz five. United States concerned the constitutionality of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, a federal police force that would have obligated state law enforcement officers to help enforce federal gun regulations.[76] [77] Scalia argued:

The Brady Deed effectively transfers this responsibility to thousands of CLEOs [master police enforcement officers] in the fifty States, who are left to implement the program without meaningful Presidential control (if indeed meaningful Presidential control is possible without the power to engage and remove). The insistence of the Framers upon unity in the Federal Executive--to ensure both vigor and accountability--is well known. See The Federalist No. 70.[76]

Executive power [edit]

Federalist No. 70 has been cited in several Supreme Court dissents every bit a justification for the expansion of executive power.[78] [79] For instance, in his 1952 dissenting opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, chief justice Fred K. Vinson wrote:

This comprehensive grant of the executive power to a single person was bestowed soon after the land had thrown the yoke of monarchy… Hamilton added: 'Energy in the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community confronting foreign attacks; it is not less essential to the steady administration of the police, to the protection of belongings against those irregular and high-handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice...'It is thus credible that the Presidency was deliberately fashioned every bit an function of ability and independence. Of class, the Framers created no autocrat capable of arrogating whatever ability unto himself at any time.[79]

Vinson referenced Federalist No. 70's arguments about free energy in the executive to debate that the president should be allowed to seize private property in a fourth dimension of national crisis.[80] In a more recent 2004 case, Hamdi five. Rumsfeld, Justice Clarence Thomas utilized Federalist No. 70 to brand the case that the president should have the power to suspend Habeas Corpus for American citizens in order to fight the war on terror.[81] [82]

In both cases, the majority of the courtroom was not persuaded that the expansions in executive power in question were justified.[78] [79] [82]

Presidential accountability [edit]

Federalist No. 70 has as well been cited by the Supreme Court equally an authorization on the importance of presidential accountability.[83] In its 1997 opinion in Clinton v. Jones, the court weighed whether or non a sitting president could filibuster addressing civil litigation until the end of his or her term.[83] [84] The court cited Federalist No. 70, stating that the president must be held accountable for his or her actions, and thus cannot be granted amnesty from ceremonious litigation.[85] However, in the 2010 example of Costless Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the courtroom cited the demand for executive accountability equally a ground to expand presidential power.[86] Writing the bulk stance, Chief Justice John Roberts stated:

The Constitution that makes the President answerable to the people for executing the laws too gives him the ability to exercise so. That power includes, as a general thing, the authority to remove those who assist him in carrying out his duties. Without such power, the President could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities; the buck would stop somewhere else. Such diffusion of say-so "would greatly diminish the intended and necessary responsibility of the chief magistrate himself." The Federalist No. 70, at 478.[86]

Roberts argued that the act in question deprived the president of the ability to hold members of an independent board answerable, thus freeing him or her of responsibility over the contained board's deportment and depriving the people of their ability to concord the president answerable.[86] [87]

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e f Prakash, Saikrishna Bangalore (1993). "Hail to the Chief Ambassador: The Framers and the President's Administrative Powers". The Yale Law Journal. 102 (iv): 991–1017. doi:10.2307/796838. hdl:twenty.500.13051/8746. JSTOR 796838. SSRN 2857499.
  2. ^ a b c d e f thou h i j g l 1000 north o p q r due south t u five w x y z aa ab Hamilton, Alexander, et al. The Federalist. Vol. 43. Hackett Publishing, 2005.
  3. ^ a b c d Coenen, Dan T. (2006). "A Rhetoric for Ratification: The Argument of "The Federalist" and Its Impact on Constitutional Interpretation". Duke Law Journal. 56 (2): 469–543. JSTOR 40040551. SSRN 943412. Gale A157589903.
  4. ^ a b c d due east Izquierdo, Richard Alexander (2013). "The American Presidency and the Logic of Constitutional Renewal: Pricing in Institutions and Historical Context from the Beginning". Periodical of Constabulary & Politics. 28 (3): 273–306. SSRN 2445614.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i j chiliad l thou due north o p q r s t u five westward x y z aa Pfiffner, James P. (2011). "Federalist No. seventy: Is the President Too Powerful?". Public Administration Review. 71: S112–S117. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02470.ten. JSTOR 41317425.
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Arnold, Peri E. (2011). "Federalist No. lxx: Can the Public Service Survive in the Contest Between Hamilton's Aspirations and Madison'south Reality?". Public Assistants Review. 71: S105–S111. doi:x.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02469.x. JSTOR 41317424.
  7. ^ a b c d east f g h i j thou l chiliad n o p q Calabresi, Steven K. (1995). "Some Normative Arguments for the Unitary Executive". Arkansas Police force Review. 48: 23–104.
  8. ^ a b c d e f yard h Corwin, Edward Samuel. "President, office and powers." (1948).
  9. ^ a b Fatovic, Clement (July 2004). "Constitutionalism and Presidential Prerogative: Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian Perspectives". American Journal of Political Science. 48 (iii): 429–444. doi:10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00079.10. JSTOR 1519908.
  10. ^ Paul Leicester Ford. "The Federalist",1898."
  11. ^ a b c d e f g h i j thousand Bailey, Jeremy D. (November 2008). "The New Unitary Executive and Democratic Theory: The Problem of Alexander Hamilton". American Political Science Review. 102 (4): 453–465. doi:10.1017/S0003055408080337. JSTOR 27644538. S2CID 144083358.
  12. ^ Jensen, Merrill (1959). The Articles of Confederation: An Interpretation of the Social-Constitutional History of the American Revolution, 1774-1781. University of Wisconsin Press. p. 184. ISBN978-0-299-00203-9.
  13. ^ Letter George Washington to George Clinton, September 11, 1783. The George Washington Papers, 1741–1799
  14. ^ Bowen, Catherine (2010) [First published 1966]. Miracle at Philadelphia : the story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787. New York: Petty, Chocolate-brown. ISBN 978-0-316-10261-2.
  15. ^ Chernow, Ron (2004). Alexander Hamilton. Penguin Books. ISBN 978-1-101-20085-eight.
  16. ^ Mitchell, Broadus (1987). "Alexander Hamilton, Executive Power and the New Nation". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 17 (ii): 329–343. JSTOR 40574455.
  17. ^ a b Scheuerman, William Eastward. (2005). "American Kingship? Monarchical Origins of Modern Presidentialism". Polity. 37 (1): 24–53. doi:10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300001. hdl:10469/14228. JSTOR 3877061. S2CID 144479722.
  18. ^ a b c Loss, Richard (1982). "Alexander Hamilton and the Modernistic Presidency: Continuity or Discontinuity?". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 12 (1): 6–25. JSTOR 27547773.
  19. ^ a b Prakash, Saikrishna (February one, 2000). "The Essential Meaning of Executive Ability". University of Illinois Police Review. 2003: 701–820. doi:10.2139/ssrn.223757. SSRN 223757.
  20. ^ a b Hamilton, Alexander, et al. The Federalist Papers. Oxford: Oxford Upwardly, 2008. Print.
  21. ^ a b Weaver, David R. (1997). "Leadership, Locke, and the Federalist". American Journal of Political Scientific discipline. 41 (2): 420–446. doi:x.2307/2111771. JSTOR 2111771.
  22. ^ a b White, Jr., Richard D. (March 2000). "Exploring the Origins of the American Authoritative Country: Recent Writings on the Ambiguous Legacy of Alexander Hamilton". Public Administration Review. 60 (2): 186–190. doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00077. JSTOR 977651.
  23. ^ Caldwell, Christopher. "Badly Seeking Hamilton." Fiscal Times [London, England] five Mar. 2003, Comment & Analysis: 21. Print.[ verification needed ]
  24. ^ Montesquieu, Charles Businesswoman De (2011). The Spirit of Laws. Cosimo. ISBN978-1-61640-528-ane. [ page needed ]
  25. ^ Fatovic, Clement (2013). "Reason and Feel in Alexander Hamilton'due south Science of Politics". American Political Thought. ii (1): i–thirty. doi:ten.1086/666658. JSTOR 10.1086/666658. S2CID 145460632. SSRN 1580764.
  26. ^ Hoff, Samuel B. (1987). "A Bicentennial Assessment of Hamilton's Energetic Executive". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 17 (4): 725–739. JSTOR 27550481.
  27. ^ "Ramble Topic: The Constitutional Convention". USConstitution.net.
  28. ^ a b c d eastward f chiliad Padover, Saul Kussiel (1970). To secure these blessings the swell debates of the Ramble Convention of 1787. Kraus Reprint Co. pp. 327–331. OCLC 654499147.
  29. ^ a b c d e f k h Delahunty, Robert J; Yoo, John C. (Bound 2002). "The president's Constitutional authority to carry military operations confronting terrorist organizations and the nations that harbor or support them". Harvard Journal of Police force and Public Policy. 25 (2): 487–517. SSRN 331202.
  30. ^ a b c Mosier, Mark W. (2003). "The Power to Declare Peace Unilaterally". The University of Chicago Law Review. 70 (4): 1609–1637. doi:10.2307/1600583. JSTOR 1600583.
  31. ^ a b c d Yoo, John C. (2002). "War and the Constitutional Text". The Academy of Chicago Law Review. 69 (4): 1639–1684. doi:ten.2307/1600615. JSTOR 1600615. SSRN 426862.
  32. ^ a b c Boylan, Timothy S. (September 2001). "The Law: Ramble Understandings of the War Power". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 31 (iii): 514–528. doi:ten.1111/j.0360-4918.2001.00185.x. JSTOR 27552327. Gale A78545881.
  33. ^ Schultz, David (May 30, 2016). "Don't Know Much about History: Constitutional Text, Practise, and Presidential Power". University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy. 5 (1): 114–134.
  34. ^ a b c Newbold, Stephanie P.; Rosenbloom, David H. (November 2007). "Critical Reflections on Hamiltonian Perspectives on Rule-Making and Legislative Proposal Initiatives by the Chief Executive". Public Assistants Review. 67 (6): 1049–1056. doi:ten.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00796.ten. JSTOR 4624665.
  35. ^ Sundquist, James L. (1988). "Needed: A Political Theory for the New Era of Coalition Authorities in the United States". Political Science Quarterly. 103 (4): 613–635. doi:10.2307/2150899. JSTOR 2150899.
  36. ^ a b c Barber, Sotirios; Fleming, James (2009). "Constitutional Theory and the Future of the Unitary Executive". Emory Law Journal. 59 (2): 459–467.
  37. ^ a b Crockett, David A. (June 2004). "The Contemporary Presidency: Unity in the Executive and the Presidential Succession Act". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 34 (two): 394–411. doi:ten.1111/j.1741-5705.2004.00050.x. JSTOR 27552591. Gale A119613611.
  38. ^ a b c Ledewitz, Bruce (1979). "The Uncertain Power of the President to Execute the Laws". Tennessee Law Review. 46 (four): 757–806. SSRN 1932735.
  39. ^ a b c d Pope, Paul James (2008). George W. Bush-league and the unitary executive theory: deconstructing unitary claims of unilateral executive authority (Thesis). OCLC 320474528. ProQuest 304405640.
  40. ^ a b c d Orentlicher, David (2013). Two Presidents Are Better Than One: The Instance for a Bipartisan Executive Co-operative. NYU Press. doi:x.18574/9780814724682 (inactive July 31, 2022). ISBN978-0-8147-8949-0. JSTOR j.ctt9qfv31. {{cite volume}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of July 2022 (link) [ folio needed ]
  41. ^ a b Bilmes, Linda J. (December 2011). "Federalist Nos. 67-77 How Would Publius Envision the Civil Service Today?". Public Administration Review. 71: s98–s104. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02468.x. JSTOR 41317423.
  42. ^ Miller, Gary J.; Hammond, Thomas H. (1989). "Stability and Efficiency in a Separation-of-Powers Constitutional System". In Grofman, Bernard; Wittman, Donald A. (eds.). The Federalist Papers and the New Institutionalism. Algora Publishing. pp. 85–99. ISBN978-0-87586-085-5.
  43. ^ a b Atkinson, Kory A. (2003). "In Defense of Federalism: The Need for a Federal Institutional Defender of State Interests". Northern Illinois University Police force Review. 24 (1): 93–116. hdl:10843/21758.
  44. ^ Pierce, Richard J. (2009). "Saving the Unitary Executive Theory from Those Who Would Distort and Abuse information technology: A Review of the Unitary Executive, by Steven G. Calabresi and Christopher Yoo". University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. 12 (two): 593–614. SSRN 1300939.
  45. ^ Krent, Harold J. (June 22, 2009). "The Unitary Executive: Presidential Power from Washington to Bush-league". Constitutional Commentary. 25 (three): 489–521. Gale A210168883.
  46. ^ a b Smith, Douglas Thou. (2001). "Separation of Powers and the Constitutional Text". Northern Kentucky Law Review. 28 (3): 595–611. SSRN 772266.
  47. ^ Rosenberg, Morton (1981). "Beyond the Limits of Executive Ability: Presidential Control of Bureau Rulemaking under Executive Order 12,291". Michigan Constabulary Review. 80 (two): 193–247. doi:ten.2307/1288047. JSTOR 1288047.
  48. ^ a b c Williams, Robert F. (1988). "Evolving State Legislative and Executive Ability in the Founding Decade". The Register of the American University of Political and Social Science. 496 (i): 43–53. doi:ten.1177/0002716288496001005. JSTOR 1046317. S2CID 154703306.
  49. ^ a b c d east f g Blunt, Barrie E. (1990). "Executive constraints in state constitutions under the Articles of Confederation". Public Administration Quarterly. 13 (4): 451–469. JSTOR 40862258. ProQuest 1294842625.
  50. ^ a b Hoxie, R. Gordon (1985). "The Presidency in the Ramble Convention". Presidential Studies Quarterly. fifteen (1): 25–32. JSTOR 27550162.
  51. ^ a b c d e f Beeman, Richard (2009). Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution. Random House Publishing Group. ISBN978-1-58836-726-six. [ page needed ]
  52. ^ a b Wrabley, Raymond B. (1991). "Anti-Federalism and the Presidency". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 21 (3): 459–470. JSTOR 27550766.
  53. ^ Riccards, Michael P. (1977). "The Presidency and the Ratification Controversy". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 7 (1): 37–46. JSTOR 27547327.
  54. ^ a b c Stonemason, George. "Objections to the Constitution of Authorities formed by the Convention." The Essential Antifederalist. Past W. B. Allen, Gordon Lloyd, and Margie Lloyd. Lanham: UP of America, 1985. 12. Print.[ page needed ] [ verification needed ]
  55. ^ Lee, Richard Henry. The Essential Antifederalist. By W. B. Allen, Gordon Lloyd, and Margie Lloyd. Lanham: UP of America, 1985. 12. Print.[ folio needed ] [ verification needed ]
  56. ^ Philadelphiensis (2009). "The President as Military Rex". The Complete Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. CreateSpace Contained Publishing Platform. p. 704. ISBN978-1-4495-7883-1.
  57. ^ a b "The Address and Reasons for Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania." The Essential Antifederalist. By W. B. Allen, Gordon Lloyd, and Margie Lloyd. Lanham: UP of America, 1985. 12. Print.[ page needed ] [ verification needed ]
  58. ^ a b c Merriam, C. E. (1899). "Thomas Paine'due south Political Theories". Political Scientific discipline Quarterly. 14 (3): 389–403. doi:10.2307/2139704. JSTOR 2139704. ProQuest 137486688.
  59. ^ Tietjen, Gregory. Introduction. Common Sense. By Thomas Paine. North.p.: Autumn River, 2013. seven-xxxi. Print.
  60. ^ a b Berry, Christopher R.; Gersen, Jacob E. (2008). "The Unbundled Executive". The Academy of Chicago Police force Review. 75 (iv): 1385–1434. JSTOR 27653959. SSRN 1113543.
  61. ^ Benedict, Michael Les (1988). "Abraham Lincoln and Federalism". Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Clan. 10 (1): i–46. hdl:2027/spo.2629860.0010.103.
  62. ^ a b Stone, Geoffrey R. (December 21, 2013). "Protecting the nation while upholding our civil liberties". Chicago Tribune.
  63. ^ a b c Palmer, Erin (2006). "Reinterpreting Torture: Presidential Signing Statements and the Circumvention of U.Southward. and International Law". Man Rights Brief. xiv (one): 21–24. SSRN 1309884.
  64. ^ a b c d Cooper, Phillip J. (September 2005). "George W. Bush, Edgar Allan Poe, and the Use and Abuse of Presidential Signing Statements". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 35 (3): 515–532. CiteSeerX10.1.1.546.460. doi:ten.1111/j.1741-5705.2005.00262.ten. JSTOR 27552703. Gale A136262639.
  65. ^ a b c Crouch, Jeffrey; Rozell, Mark J.; Sollenberger, Mitchel A. (December 2013). "The Law : President Obama'southward Signing Statements and the Expansion of Executive Power: President Obama". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 43 (4): 883–899. doi:ten.1111/psq.12071. hdl:2027.42/100285. JSTOR 43285355. Gale A350575074.
  66. ^ a b Mayer, Jane (2009). The Dark Side: The Within Story of How The State of war on Terror Turned into a State of war on American Ethics. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. ISBN978-0-307-45650-2. [ page needed ]
  67. ^ a b c Kreimer, Seth (2003). "Also Close to the Rack and the Screw: Constitutional Constraints on Torture in the State of war on Terror". University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Police force. half-dozen (2): 278–325.
  68. ^ a b c d Chemerinsky, Erwin (2006). "The Attack on the Constitution: Executive Ability and the State of war on Terrorism". U.C. Davis Law Review. twoscore (1): one–20.
  69. ^ Garvey, Todd (June 2011). "The Law: The Obama Administration's Evolving Approach to the Signing Statement". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 41 (two): 393–407. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2011.03860.x. JSTOR 23884838. Gale A254825813.
  70. ^ Korzi, Michael J. (May 2011). "'A Legitimate Function': Reconsidering Presidential Signing Statements". Congress & the Presidency. 38 (two): 195–216. doi:10.1080/07343469.2011.576222. S2CID 153909187.
  71. ^ Greenwald, Glenn (Feb 5, 2013). "Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies bump-off of US citizens". The Guardian.
  72. ^ Harper, Jim (February 17, 2006). "Secrecy Fetish Hurts Terror State of war". Cato Constitute.
  73. ^ "American Civil Liberties Union." American Ceremonious Liberties Marriage. North.p., north.d. Web. 12 April. 2014.[ verification needed ]
  74. ^ Bartosiewicz, Petra (December vii, 2012). "A permanent state of war on terror". Los Angeles Times.
  75. ^ Hollis-Brusky, Amanda (Jan one, 2011). "Helping Ideas Have Consequences: Political and Intellectual Investment in the Unitary Executive Theory, 1981-2000". Denver Police Review. 89 (1): 197–244.
  76. ^ a b Printz v. U.S. Supreme Courtroom of the United States. 27 June 1997. Find Law. Spider web. 13 Apr. 2014. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=521&invol=898.
  77. ^ PRINTZ v. U.s.a.. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Police force. 11 Apr 2014. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1478
  78. ^ a b Simon, Kelly E. (Spring 2003). "Hamdi v. Rumsfeld". Georgetown Immigration Police Journal. 17 (3): 511–514.
  79. ^ a b c 343 U.S. 579; 72 Southward. Ct. 863; 96 L. Ed. 1153; 1952 U.S. LEXIS 2625; 21 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P67,008; 1952 Trade Cas. (CCH) P67,293; 62 Ohio L. Abs. 417; 47 Ohio Op. 430; 26 A.L.R.2d 1378; 30 Fifty.R.R.Thou. 2172. LexisNexis Academic. Spider web. Date Accessed: 2014/04/13.
  80. ^ Westin, Alan F. (1990). The Beefcake of a Constitutional Police Example: Youngstown Sail and Tube Co. V. Sawyer (the Steel Seizure Decision). Columbia University Press. ISBN978-0-231-07334-9. [ folio needed ]
  81. ^ Anderson, James B. (March 22, 2005). "Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: judicious balancing at the intersection of the executive's power to detain and the citizen-detainee'due south correct to due process". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 95 (three): 689–724. JSTOR 3491324. Gale A135705820.
  82. ^ a b Perkin, Jared (March i, 2005). "Habeas Corpus in the War Confronting Terrorism: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Citizen Enemy Combatabts". Brigham Young University Periodical of Public Law. 19 (ii): 437–471.
  83. ^ a b LEXIS 3254; 65 Us50.W. 4372; 73 Off-white Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1548; 73 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1549; lxx Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P44,686; 97 Cal. Daily Op. Service 3908; 97 Daily Periodical DAR 6669; 10 Fla. 50. Weekly Fed. S 499. LexisNexis Bookish. Web. Date Accessed: 2014/04/13.
  84. ^ CLINTON v. JONES. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 12 Apr 2014. https://world wide web.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1853#opinion
  85. ^ Kasten, Martin (1998). "Summons at 1600: Clinton v. Jones' Bear upon on the American Presidency". Arkansas Law Review. 51 (3): 551–574.
  86. ^ a b c 130 Due south. Ct. 3138; 177 L. Ed. 2d 706; 2010 U.South. LEXIS 5524; 78 U.S.L.Due west. 4766; 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 685. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2014/04/13.
  87. ^ Complimentary ENTERPRISE FUND v. PUBLIC Visitor OVERSIGHT Board. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 06 April 2014. https://world wide web.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_861

External links [edit]

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

  • Text of The Federalist No. seventy: congress.gov

Main Point Of Federalist 70,

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._70#:~:text=a%20unitary%20executive-,Federalist%20No.,ensure%20accountability%20in%20government

Posted by: millersentwo1953.blogspot.com

0 Response to "Main Point Of Federalist 70"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel