Federalist 70 - The Executive Power

Federalist 70 (1788) Overview

  • Author: Alexander Hamilton

  • Context: Arguments for a strong executive leader under the Constitution compared to the weak executive under the Articles of Confederation.

  • Main Thesis: Hamilton posits that a vigorous executive is crucial for good governance, asserting that it is essential for protecting the community from foreign attacks, ensuring the steady administration of laws, safeguarding property, and maintaining justice and liberty.

Energy in the Executive

  • Definition of Energy: Hamilton defines energy in the Executive as a leading characteristic of good government, which includes:

    • Protection against foreign attacks.

    • Steady law enforcement.

    • Safeguarding property against irregular combinations that disrupt justice.

    • Securing liberty against ambitions, factions, and anarchy.

  • Historical Precedent: Cites the Roman Republic's reliance on a single leader (Dictator) during crises to illustrate the necessity of strong executive power to manage internal seditions and external threats.

  • Analysis of Weak Executives: A weak Executive leads to poor governance:

    • A weak execution of government equates to bad government regardless of theoretical soundness.

Ingredients of an Energetic Executive

  • Essential Components:

    1. Unity: A single, unified Executive is vital for energy and decisiveness. Decision-making, activity, and dispatch are significantly enhanced in a single person compared to a group.

    2. Duration: The Executive must have a term length that allows for stability and continuity.

    3. Support: The Executive should have adequate resources and provisions to perform effectively.

    4. Competent Powers: Sufficient authority to act decisively in the public interest.

Safety in Republican Governance

  • Components of Safety:

    1. Due Dependence on the People: The Executive must be accountable to the public.

    2. Due Responsibility: The Executive must be answerable for actions taken in office.

  • Historical and Modern References: Future politicians like the celebrated figures in political thought have favored a robust Executive paired with a large legislature to balance energy with deliberative wisdom. Hamilton references state governments, highlighting that New York and New Jersey have entrusted executive authority only to a single individual, emphasizing the effectiveness of unity.

The Case Against Plurality in the Executive

  • Problems with Multiple Executives:

    • Decision-making can stall due to differing opinions and potential infighting, leading to diminished authority and respect.

    • Disunity could create a divided populace, weakening the government's hability to respond effectively to critical issues.

    • In emergencies, a plural executive may impede essential government measures due to conflicts among leaders.

Consequences of Dissension in Executives

  • Disadvantages:

    • In a legislative body, differing opinions can lead to deliberation and prevent the excesses of a majority. However, in the Executive, discord is detrimental, inhibiting timely execution of decisions.

    • In military matters, plurality could threaten national security by dividing focus and command.

The Role of Responsibility and Blame in the Executive

  • Responsibility in Governance: Hamilton points out the risk of obscured responsibility in plural executives, where blame for failures can shift among leaders leading to lack of accountability.

    • He emphasizes that clear accountability is crucial, particularly for elective offices. The presence of multiple executives complicates the ability to discern responsibility for adverse outcomes.

  • Expectations for Government Accountability: He contrasts the responsibility structure of the monarchy with that required of a republican system:

    • In a monarchy, the King is often unaccountable, with a council providing advice. Conversely, in a republic, individuals in power should be directly responsible to the people.

Conclusion and Final Thoughts

  • Historical Perspective: Cites historical interpretations, arguing against historical pluralities in claiming significant advantages, pointing to various examples in Rome that corroborate his view.

  • Hamilton's Ultimate Stance: A single leader is more efficient, limits the spread of power, and can be monitored more closely by the citizenry. The dangers posed by numerous executives outweigh any perceived benefits.

  • Advice for Government Structures: Hamilton concludes that unity in the executive branch is a safety measure rather than a vulnerability, advocating a singular executive to optimize governmental energy, accountability, and public trust.