Constitutional Authority of the President

Constitutional Authority Question

(In Regards to the Office of the President)

One of the greatest debates in the short history of the United States was over the proposed Constitution and did not solely take place inside the walls of the Constitutional convention. Throughout our great nation many individuals from different class levels and occupations became involved in the question over the new plan of government. Many views were expressed through the distribution of pamphlets, sermons, and the release of newspaper essays to sway citizens on the changes proposed. Authors expressed views ranging from the complete acceptance, conditional acceptance based on particular amendments, to the flat rejection of the Constitution. The ratification of the Constitution became the subject of debate, those in support were known as Federalists and those opposed were subsequently became known as the Anti-Federalists.

United, the Federalists came together and were mostly in favor of a stronger national government. According to the Federalists this stronger national government proposed in the new Constitution could not have come out of the Articles of Confederation through any means of restructuring or amending. The Anti-Federalists however, did not have a unifying label that would be easy to define. The Anti-Federalists as a majority leaned toward a weaker national government that would better protect States’ rights. Since a single position taken by the Anti-Federalist is not shared consistently they are appropriately named. The opposition in itself was not even commonly shared amongst the Anti-Federalists in the final adoption of the Constitution for many of the Anti-Federalists favored the adoption on the condition of amendments could secure rights, and others did finally accept the Constitution, even without such provisions, the lack of a better choice of government.

The stance of Anti-Federalists cannot be taken lightly however, for their contributions to the democratic deliberations we have come to know today. This debate greatly contributed our understanding of our national government and provided for stronger protections and the addition of a bill of rights. Although the Constitution did ultimately get passed, this did not necessarily prove the Federalists right in every instance and the Anti-Federalists wrong. This is particularly is proven in the evidence of the many predictions of the Anti-Federalists that have come true and the change of opinion on several essays from “The Federalist” that the authors later changed their opinion on. The decisive reason for the Constitution’s eventual ratification and the alleged failure of the Anti-Federalist can be pinpointed to several key issues, some of which are the lack of an cohesive opinion of the Anti-Federalists, the absence of a worthy alternative, and a weaker argument to be debated. This is notably portrayed in the Anti-Federalist dissention of the Constitutions clauses for the office of the President and reveals similarities to the failures they suffered in their position against Constitution as a whole.

The Presidency is examined and criticized for various inadequacies and dangers that are highly representative of the Federalists desire for a stronger national government and the fears of the Anti-Federalists. The Constitution provides a limited description for executive powers of the President, and was controversial in the mind of many Anti-Federalists for its separation of powers or the lack of separation, in the philosophical framework many Anti-Federalists see in opposition to the Federalists. The opinions that are addressed range greatly and many Anti-Federalists disagree on a consistent argument that could be effectively labeled to that of the Anti-Federalist position. In opposition to the clauses that directly affect the office of the President the anti-federalists disagreed with many powers and also lack of strength through the course of many essays and speeches. The Anti-Federalists took opposing sides to that of the Federalists on the Presidents power of appointments, term of office, liability to impeachment and removal, participation in the legislative process, powers as Commander and Chief, and treaty making. The Federalists responsively published an eleven-essay survey of their positions on the Constitutions various aspects of the Presidency.

The Anti-Federalists were unorganized and therefore it is difficult to list an exact order of their opposition to the Constitutions office of the Presidency. They successfully can be linked together by addressing the particular problems published in writings opposed to the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists saw the powers of the President to be dangerous and to be closely related to a monarchy, particularly by comparison to the powers of the King of England. This is addressed in “The Powers