Research Paper: Presidential Powers under the U. S. Constitution

I plan to investigate whether or not the constitution provides a healthy distribution of presidential power as it holds extreme importance. The president is the leader of our country and essential to a working, fair democracy. Specifically, I plan to focus on the constitution’s attempt to efficiently limit executive power, which is important to the prevention of corruption and non-representative government. To further investigate, I will be examining Cato’s explanation on the lack of equal power distribution in no.4 and Alexander Hamilton’s counterargument of ideal limitation on executive power in The Federalist Paper no. 69. I believe Cato’s argument as to how the constitution fails to properly limit presidential power is stronger than Hamilton’s due to his extensive analysis of presidential duties and in depth breakdown of possibilities for extensive influence..

As previously stated, Cato, an antifederalist, concludes that the constitution poorly arranges executive power. Cato begins his analysis with the vagueness of the constitution and how it could possibly affect the republic. “—this inexplicitness perhaps may lead to an establishment for life”(Cato no.4 2). The lack of concrete terms within the document creates an opportunity for those enforcing the law to interpret it freely, or to their personal biases. With this danger, the structure of the executive branch adds fuel to the fire by further enabling this possibility. “It is therefore obvious to the least intelligent mind, to account why, great power in the hands of a magistrate, and that power connected, with a considerable duration, may be dangerous to the liberties of a republic”(Cato no.4 3). The constitution allows for a president to serve four year terms, leaving the door open for abuse of power. Along with this fault in the constitution, Cato further points out another presidential power with extreme influence. “—his power of nomination and influence on all appointments” (Cato no.4 3). The president, similarly to a king, has the power to appoint individuals of his choice. This ability alone gives the executive more power to corrupt and influence than any other branch of government through personal bias and selection.  “...and will generally be directed by minions and favorites'' (Cato no.4 4). The president can now further expand his influence and control all branches of government, which is considerably dangerous to the people under rule. With a nation riding on a single person with indefinite, extremely influential duties and enough time to follow through, the president has infinite power.

As if the constitution hadn’t given the executive branch enough power to influence, the creation of a vice president becomes an additive. “The establishment of a vice-president is as unnecessary as it is dangerous. This officer, for want of other employment, is made president of the senate, thereby blending the executive and legislative powers” (Cato no.4 7). Along with the power to personally select officers, the executive branch now has control to influence and sway the actions of the legislative branch. Furthermore, Cato examines how the constitution allows for a direct path to controlling influential legislative duties. “:he is a constituent part of the legislative power; for every bill which shall pass the house of representatives and senate, is to be presented to him for approbation; if he approves of it, he is to sign it, if he disapproves, he is to return it with objections,” (Cato no.4 9). Essentially, the president has unlimited access to control and power over more than just the executive branch of government. Therefore, the constitution does a poor job at implementing restrictions on power and control for the president. 

Contrary to Cato’s no.4, Alexander Hamilton takes on the task of explaining the opposing side of the argument. “That magistrate is to be elected for four years; and is to be re-eligible as often as the people of the United States shall think him worthy of their confidence” (The Federalist no.69 3). While the president is in office for four year terms, it is contingent on the decision of the people. This would mean the president would only hold power, if it was granted by the voting outcome rather than the process of a King. Additionally, Hamilton connects the role of a president to that of a governor to better support the absence of danger for corruption within the government. “We must conclude that a duration of four years for the Chief Magistrate of the Union is a degree of permanency far less to be dreaded in that office, than a duration of three years for a corresponding office in a single State” (The Federalist no. 69 3). The influence of the executive is not all that extreme when put into perspective, and is certainly not comparable to the lifetime duty of a king. Despite the constant comparison of the president to the king in Cato’s argument, Hamilton strives to highlight very important structural differences between the two. “The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable;” (The Federalist no. 69 4). Not only does this highlight a major check on the president and possible corruption, but also sheds light on the extreme difference in power the two roles hold. “but the bill so returned is to become a law unless, upon that reconsideration, it be approved by two thirds of both houses” (The Federalist no. 69 5). While it may seem like the power of the president is unlimited by the constitution, there is a present balance between each branch of government to prevent the overpowering of a single office.

After examining both arguments, I believe Cato has the stronger presence of evidence supporting his claim. Cato’s no.4 not only lists and describes the insufficiency of the constitution in limiting executive power, but it goes a step further to identify the loopholes. For example, Hamilton explains the difference between the power of the king and president, but fails to acknowledge the ways around these checks and balances. Cato also had a variety of themes and supporting factors of this insufficiency rather than getting hung up on a small detail like Hamilton’s central point surrounding the comparison to the king. With all of these coming into play, Cato’s message is relayed louder and more precise. I also believe it was interpreted in a sense of reality and acknowledgement for human nature to put self-interest above all. As we see in the present day, there are executives who jump through these loopholes often leading to extreme influence and disruption of society beyond the government. The president does hold extreme power as he or she reigns supreme to interpret, implement, and promote the constitution through a personal perspective. Often including some type of bias, the president is able to appoint officers in support of this same bias, creating a miny army used to promote a personal idea or belief rather than remaining neutral for the good of the public. The fact that this is even a possibility reveals the lack of limitation of power of the executive branch in the constitution just as Cato argues.