The American Presidency

Part A – New Nation, New Government

The ideals of the American Revolution: a review

The American Revolution is not a chronologically easy to delimit event since its causes can go back to the Proclamation of 1763 and its final closing act can extend to the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783. By the time the Declaration of Independence is approved, the 4 ^th of July of 1776, and signed, on August the 2 ^nd, several Acts imposing taxes on Americans and the indignant complaints against them have already occurred. Acts of protest that have left people dead, such as the Boston Massacre, or led George III to economic sanctions after the dumping of the English tea in the Boston harbor, have happened, and two small battles, in Lexington and Concord, have been fought. Almost a month before the currently celebrated date, Richard Henry Lee had presented to the illegally formed Continental Congress a resolution declaring, "these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States." ¹ However, the document that is approved is Jefferson's Declaration which seized this opportunity to not only let the British Crown know of the colonies' intentions for separation and independence, but also to help rally the colonists to stand for ideals bigger than the hostilities and revolts that had progressively divided Americans into Loyalists and Patriots ². This document was a call to awaken a birthright for a new type of authority in which the majority, the people, would establish the government and as such, have the power to put an end to it when the ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were not being honored. ³ As it turns out, by 1776, the now considered tyrant king George had been ignoring those supreme ideals and, instead, kept insisting on more punishment to the disobeying colonies: "I do not want to drive them to despair but to Submission." ⁴ Fortunately, such a goal was not achieved and the newly declared independent colonies had to quickly devise a system of governance that could assure such an institution would never arise.

In the Merriam-Webster dictionary on line, the definition of tyranny refers to words from Thomas Jefferson: "tyranny is an oppressive power exerted by government." For government to become tyrannical, a concentration of power needs to be in place. European history, which also shapes American history, had been plagued with this type of authority in which power is either an inheritance or legacy, or acquired through whatever means, even violence, if necessary. James Madison, writing in Federalist 47, expands the term: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed (sic), or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

Even before Madison had been concerned with the possibility of replacing a British tyrant with an administration with controlled powers, the Continental Congress of 1776 had drafted the Articles of Confederation, which were seen as a means to give legitimacy to the cause of independence as well as secure foreign help for the Revolutionary War. The Confederate States of America, the alliance between the thirteen colonies with the purpose of securing the desired independence, relied on the Articles to guide the nation in its war (and eventual peace) efforts, clarify the terms of diplomatic and commercial agreements with foreign powers and help the states decide border disputes; however, each state was sovereign in its governing functions and no central or federal power had been established.

The Articles of Confederation on Trial

From the very beginning in 1777, it was clear that the Articles of Confederation lacked the instrumental strength to unite the thirteen states into a new country. Among the complaints that were being discussed: the colonies were burdened with an increasing debt due to the Revolutionary War, but there was no chief executive, no court system and no means to force a state to pay taxes let alone declare common policies; it became evident, even as the Articles were still being ratified, that a new document needed to be drafted to replace them. ⁵

Hamilton in Federalist 15 asks several questions aimed at justifying the need of a federation, a republican government in which the coalition of states would have to share powers with a federal, central authority: "The measures of the Union have not been executed; the delinquencies of the States have, step by step, matured themselves to an extreme, which has, at length, arrested all the wheels of the national government, and brought them to an awful stand. Congress at this time scarcely possess (sic) the means of keeping up the forms of administration, till the States can have time to agree upon a more substantial substitute for the present shadow of a federal government." George Washington himself, troubled by Shays' Rebellion –a local uprising that took a year to be controlled- acknowledged the weaknesses of the Articles since the fragile federal government could not even deal with internal insurrections. Later, Hamilton again, Washington's top aide at the time, would eventually get the general's endorsement and ask Congress to call on the state representatives to a convention where the need of a new constitution would be discussed.

The American Constitution

The few states present at the Convention of 1786 passed a motion to meet the following year with all the states present. The intention was to improve the Articles; however, as it turned out, in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 a series of secret meetings were held, everyone present was sworn to secrecy, and from May until September a new Constitution was written.

Writing the new Constitution of the United States was not an easy task. The framers of the new document, very much aware of the causes of the American Revolution and the possibility of recreating a government very much like the British monarchy, spent long hours, during those five months, listening to arguments, talks and debates, getting angry and coming back to the table of discussions and negotiations, to form a national government that could ensure peace and prosperity in the nation. ⁶

When discussing the need for a republican government, the issue of tyranny kept resurfacing. The main concern was how to distribute power and make it equitable. James Madison, in Federalist 47, expressed his concern and solution: "...the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct."

Thus, in order to avoid or minimize the possibility of tyranny, the framers devised a system of checks and balances that would divide the government into branches and, although giving each one certain powers, it also made them responsible for and to one another. ⁷

Preventing Tyranny: a Division of Powers

The idea and need of Federalism as a system of government gradually took shape when, during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the thirteen states' representatives struggled with the suggestion of letting the central government make decisions that would affect everyone. The states, under a federal government, share the sovereignty of the country with a central Chief Executive: they can still make their own decisions while, at the same time, coming to consensus regarding those measures that benefit everyone in the nation. Thus, the central government can check the states just as the states can check it. This also implies that the governmental instruments and institutions created will reflect this dynamic both at the country and the state levels.

By separating and sharing the powers of government there is a level of control given to each division while, at the same time, each one is not allowed to take over and rule despotically. The separation of powers establishes executive, legislative and judicial offices in charge of and delimited to specific functions, decisions and responsibilities. In general, the executive office is managed by the president and his cabinet; the legislative office, with its seat in Congress, splits the administration between the House of Representatives and the Senate, and the judicial office, housed in the Supreme Court, is ruled by nine judges (originally six) called justices.

Summarizing the Constitution, the president of the United States is in charge of executing the laws of the country. For such means, he can hire or appoint people who will enforce and carry out the national laws; he is in charge of making treaties and conducting foreign policy, and he can appoint the members of the executive cabinet. He shares powers with the Supreme Court as he can appoint judges, also with Congress when he suggests laws and budgets, or when he vetoes a bill Congress has passed. The two houses of Congress have the responsibility and authority of making laws; they can also support or reject the treaties and appointments made by the president, and approve budgets. To balance it all out, the Supreme Court is in charge of deciding the meaning of the laws, approved by Congress, as well as stating their constitutionality under the power of a judicial review. This separation of powers, the framers argued and reasoned, would protect the people from giving too much control to a single individual or institution while, at the same time, would prevent the different offices from doing what they wanted once they had been elected or appointed.

This structure aims at common goals originally established in the Declaration of Independence with its ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A democracy gives its main power to the people who elect their Congress and Chief Executive but, as Madison suggested, a people by itself is not enough control for a government: this government could turn against its people if the power is absolutely centralized. ⁸ The division of powers and the system of checks and balances makes this almost, if not completely, impossible since it would require for the three branches to be in complete, despotic agreement to override the people's wishes. History has not shown such a case, at least not yet. For example, if the president is found unlawful and needs to be impeached, both the Senate and the House would have to agree in hiding his criminality; a law viewed as unconstitutional is nullified as it can be vetoed by the president and ruled as undemocratic by the Supreme Court; the members of the Supreme Court are appointed by the president as it becomes necessary, but such selection has to be approved by Congress; at the same time, the justices transcend the presidency when they were chosen since they are assigned to the Supreme Court for life.

Just as important as the division of powers and a system for restraining the people in charge and equalizing the weight of a shared authority, another very much discussed issue became the size of the states, not regarding area but population, for their representation in Congress. Two plans were presented: under the penmanship of Edmund Randolph, the Virginia Plan, from one of most populous states, suggested that the allocation of legislative seats in each house would be based on population. William Patterson, aware that such policy would take over his own less populated state, countered with the New Jersey Plan: states should have equal representation in Congress. John Dickerson, from Delaware, proposed that at least in one of the houses, states should have an equal amount of votes. And after more arguing and a rejection of the New Jersey plan, the Virginia plan prevailed with a few compromises that had been inspired by Dickerson: the House of Representatives would have a number of delegates per state based on population; the Senate would have an equal representation of two votes per state. The bigger states, entitled to more representatives in the House would have more power in that chamber; the smaller states, having the same number of legislators as any other state, would have equal power in the Senate. In the fair and objective political world the framers of the Constitution had envisioned, another possibility to control tyranny had been achieved: in the House, unequal representation would legally give the states with more inhabitants a louder voice; in the Senate, equal representation saved the smaller states from a possible supremacy by the larger states. ⁹

This was an experiment, as no model exactly like this had ever existed. As history has proven, the United States has had all kinds of leaders and the Constitution has had amendments but not dramatic changes at its core. However, from the very beginning, even with the unanimously elected first president, the very much admired and loved General of the revolution, George Washington, voices were raised about the president exceeding the powers to him granted by the Constitution. It has taken a strong document and faithful leaders, sometimes in all branches of government, to sustain this type of administration. As we study the first three presidencies, it becomes evident that the American democracy has been shaped by the institutions created as well as the character and traits of the elected leaders.