I chose this one because it is the only recent paper I have written for a college course.
In Alexander Hamilton’s essay, Federalist 70, he argues in favor of a single executive as a suggestion for the government structure for the United States. In Federalist 70, the most significant contributions to the piece are Hamilton’s analyses and comparisons between different types of executives, using real, as opposed to theoretical, examples and discussing problems with certain types of executive branches. Hamilton specifically uses the examples of the Roman Republic and the British constitutional monarchy to discuss their issues.
Hamilton first analyzes the executive branch of the Roman Republic, the consuls, dual executives with veto authority in the Roman Republic. Hamilton introduces his opposition to multiple executives by stating that people are “not to be enamoured of plurality in the Executive” because “the Roman history records many instances of mischiefs to the republic from the dissensions between the Consuls” while offering “no specimens of any peculiar advantages.” Hamilton means that plurality in executives causes problems within a government without having any advantages. Hamilton then discusses specific examples of plural executives causing harm in a government as he says, “Wherever two or more persons are engaged in any common enterprise or pursuit, there is always danger of difference of opinion. If it be a public trust or office, in which they are clothed with equal dignity and authority, there is peculiar danger of personal emulation and even animosity. From either, and especially from all these causes, the most bitter dissensions are apt to spring. Whenever these happen, they lessen the respectability, weaken the authority, and distract the plans and operation of those whom they divide. If they should unfortunately assail the supreme executive magistracy of a country, consisting of a plurality of persons, they might impede or frustrate the most important measures of the government, in the most critical emergencies of the state. And what is still worse, they might split the community into the most violent and irreconcilable factions, adhering differently to the different individuals who composed the magistracy.”(Hamilton). Hamilton’s opposition to multiple executives comes from the differing ideas or aspirations of the multiple executives. Furthermore, the differing ideas of the executives would weaken the position overall. Unlike in the legislative branch of government, competing interests offer no advantages in the executive branch where a certain amount of urgency is necessary to perform the task of executive. Additionally, multiple executives encourages the formation of factions; an example of such can be shown through the rivalry between Julius Caesar and Pompey. Because Pompey and Caesar were competing for power, Pompey conspired with the senate against Caesar, causing a civil war. The overall significance of Hamilton’s discussion on the Roman Republic highlights is the explanation on why the system of multiple executives does not work and should not be used.
Hamilton also analyzes the British monarchy as another form of executive power; However, Hamilton is as dismissive of the British Monarchy as he is of the Roman Republic. According to Hamilton, “In England, the king is a perpetual magistrate… he is unaccountable for his administration, and his person sacred. Nothing, therefore, can be wiser in that kingdom, than to annex to the king a constitutional council, who may be responsible to the nation for the advice they give… even there the king is not bound by the resolutions of his council… He is the absolute master of his own conduct in the exercise of his office, and may observe or disregard the counsel given to him at his sole discretion”(Hamilton). Though the King of Britain would not have competition in his position, he would not be held accountable for any failures in governance either; instead the king is considered above laws and scrutiny. Furthermore, Hamilton condemns the British Parliament as it serves to protect the king’s power, not dispute it, causing a dearth of checks and balances in the government. Hamilton then says ideally that “in a republic, where every magistrate ought to be personally responsible for his behavior in office the reason which in the British Constitution dictates the propriety of a council, not only ceases to apply, but turns against the institution. In the monarchy of Great Britain, it furnishes a substitute for the prohibited responsibility of the chief magistrate, which serves in some degree as a hostage to the national justice for his good behavior. In the American republic, it would serve to destroy, or would greatly diminish, the intended and necessary responsibility of the Chief Magistrate himself”(Hamilton). Hamilton suggests that everyone, including members of the government, should be subject to the laws of the nation and the judgement of the people. The significance of this excerpt highlights how any government official, including executives, must be subject to common law and popular scrutiny.
Hamilton uses real comparisons to strengthen his observations. Using real examples of flawed governments, his ideas are much more plausible, opposed to arguments based off of theoretical examples. Without such comparisons, his arguments would be severely weakened.