--resistance to a strong executive at the convention
--single executive v executive council
--selection of executive
--"energy" and the executive
--significance of G. Washington's presence
Some at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 felt an executive necessary to the carrying out of the laws passed by the legislature; others felt an executive not only unnecessary but dangerous. But all of the major plans included one in some form or another. In the Virginia Plan, the executive was a single person with considerable power, who, along with the judiciary, would have some veto power over the legislature. In the New Jersey Plan, the executive was not one person, but a council of sorts, a sort of co-presidency. In both cases, the executive was chosen by the legislature. These presidents were nothing like the president we know today.
The reason is clear - the royal governors and the King, and their love of power, were fresh on the minds of the Framers. The need for a third branch, a branch whose task is the carrying out of the laws, was clear under the concept of the separation of powers. But the Framers wanted to be careful, to avoid creating a position from which a tyrant could rule over the states.
When the Convention took up the question of the President, they had a few decisions to make: single individual or committee? Appointed or elected? And what powers should the President, in whatever form, be able to carry out? The debate started when James Wilson almost immediately moved that the Executive be a single person. Sherman was opposed - the lines were clear. States rightists wanted a weak executive; nationalists a strong one. Wilson noted that each of the states had single executives; the idea is well-known and seemed to work. When it came to a vote, the single executive prevailed.
The next task was to decide on a term and how the President would be chosen - by the people or by the legislature? The idea of direct election sounds so simple to us today, but in 18th century America, there were no parties, no conventions, no mass media . . . how would the people know who to vote for? Many supported the idea of direct election, but considered it impractical. Accordingly, the Founders eventually adopted the idea of the Electoral College.
There was considerable debate at the Constitutional Convention about just how strong the chief executive should be. Those who argued for a strong chief executive won the day. The idea, then, behind the chief executive is summed up by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #70 who explains that the defining characteristic of the executive office should be "energy"--by which he means constitutionally based power. Hamilton argues that this "energy" is essential for protection against foreign attack, the stability of public administration, security against those who would violate the right to property--and protection against anarchy and tyranny. In other words, a strong executive is essential for a healthy republic!
Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks: It is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws, to the protection of property against those irregular and high handed combinations, which sometimes interrupt the ordinary course of justice, to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction and of anarchy.
For this reason, there were some who wanted the president to be eligible for re-election an unlimited number of times; others wanted more limited tenure. The compromise was election to a four year term an unlimited number of times. This, though, was in some measure overruled by the 22nd Amendment (1951), passed in response to FDR’s four terms of office, that limits the president to only two terms of office. This means that, if he is re-elected, his political power (not necessarily his constitutional power) gradually weakens, the farther he moves into his second term.
Another factor in creating a strong executive was the presence of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention. Everyone knew that he would be the next president so they were somewhat assured that the first president at least would not be a tyrant. In conclusion, the founders created what some now call “The most powerful man in the world.” (Or, potentially the most powerful woman.) That’s not far from the truth.
To see a spoof on just how powerful the president might be, see this homemade rendition of George Bush’s State of the Union address HERE.