|
If History Interests You, then This Section of the
Site is For You |
|
Back |
Federalist
No. 67
The Executive Department
From the New York Packet Tuesday, March 11, 1788. |
Next |
|
Author: Alexander Hamilton
To the People of the State of New York:
THE constitution of the executive department of the proposed
government, claims next our attention.
There is hardly any part of the system which could have been
attended with greater difficulty in the arrangement of it than
this; and there is, perhaps, none which has been inveighed
against with less candor or criticised with less judgment.
Here the writers against the Constitution seem to have taken
pains to signalize their talent of misrepresentation.
Calculating upon the aversion of the people to monarchy, they
have endeavored to enlist all their jealousies and apprehensions
in opposition to the intended President of the United States;
not merely as the embryo, but as the full-grown progeny, of that
detested parent. To establish the pretended affinity, they have
not scrupled to draw resources even from the regions of fiction.
The authorities of a magistrate, in few instances greater, in
some instances less, than those of a governor of New York, have
been magnified into more than royal prerogatives. He has been
decorated with attributes superior in dignity and splendor to
those of a king of Great Britain. He has been shown to us with
the diadem sparkling on his brow and the imperial purple flowing
in his train. He has been seated on a throne surrounded with
minions and mistresses, giving audience to the envoys of foreign
potentates, in all the supercilious pomp of majesty. The images
of Asiatic despotism and voluptuousness have scarcely been
wanting to crown the exaggerated scene. We have been taught to
tremble at the terrific visages of murdering janizaries, and to
blush at the unveiled mysteries of a future seraglio.
Attempts so extravagant as these to disfigure or, it might
rather be said, to metamorphose the object, render it necessary
to take an accurate view of its real nature and form: in order
as well to ascertain its true aspect and genuine appearance, as
to unmask the disingenuity and expose the fallacy of the
counterfeit resemblances which have been so insidiously, as well
as industriously, propagated.
In the execution of this task, there is no man who would not
find it an arduous effort either to behold with moderation, or
to treat with seriousness, the devices, not less weak than
wicked, which have been contrived to pervert the public opinion
in relation to the subject. They so far exceed the usual though
unjustifiable licenses of party artifice, that even in a
disposition the most candid and tolerant, they must force the
sentiments which favor an indulgent construction of the conduct
of political adversaries to give place to a voluntary and
unreserved indignation. It is impossible not to bestow the
imputation of deliberate imposture and deception upon the gross
pretense of a similitude between a king of Great Britain and a
magistrate of the character marked out for that of the President
of the United States. It is still more impossible to withhold
that imputation from the rash and barefaced expedients which
have been employed to give success to the attempted imposition.
In one instance, which I cite as a sample of the general spirit,
the temerity has proceeded so far as to ascribe to the President
of the United States a power which by the instrument reported is
EXPRESSLY allotted to the Executives of the individual States. I
mean the power of filling casual vacancies in the Senate.
This bold experiment upon the discernment of his countrymen has
been hazarded by a writer who (whatever may be his real merit)
has had no inconsiderable share in the applauses of his party;
and who, upon this false and unfounded suggestion, has built a
series of observations equally false and unfounded. Let him now
be confronted with the evidence of the fact, and let him, if he
be able, justify or extenuate the shameful outrage he has
offered to the dictates of truth and to the rules of fair
dealing.
The second clause of the second section of the second article
empowers the President of the United States ``to nominate, and
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the
Supreme Court, and all other OFFICERS of United States whose
appointments are NOT in the Constitution OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR,
and WHICH SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY LAW.'' Immediately after this
clause follows another in these words: ``The President shall
have power to fill up ?? VACANCIES that may happen DURING THE
RECESS OF THE SENATE, by granting commissions which shall EXPIRE
AT THE END OF THEIR NEXT SESSION.'' It is from this last
provision that the pretended power of the President to fill
vacancies in the Senate has been deduced. A slight attention to
the connection of the clauses, and to the obvious meaning of the
terms, will satisfy us that the deduction is not even colorable.
The first of these two clauses, it is clear, only provides a
mode for appointing such officers, ``whose appointments are NOT
OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR in the Constitution, and which SHALL BE
ESTABLISHED BY LAW''; of course it cannot extend to the
appointments of senators, whose appointments are OTHERWISE
PROVIDED FOR in the Constitution, and who are ESTABLISHED BY THE
CONSTITUTION, and will not require a future establishment by
law. This position will hardly be contested.
The last of these two clauses, it is equally clear, cannot be
understood to comprehend the power of filling vacancies in the
Senate, for the following reasons: First. The relation in which
that clause stands to the other, which declares the general mode
of appointing officers of the United States, denotes it to be
nothing more than a supplement to the other, for the purpose of
establishing an auxiliary method of appointment, in cases to
which the general method was inadequate. The ordinary power of
appointment is confined to the President and Senate JOINTLY, and
can therefore only be exercised during the session of the
Senate; but as it would have been improper to oblige this body
to be continually in session for the appointment of officers and
as vacancies might happen IN THEIR RECESS, which it might be
necessary for the public service to fill without delay, the
succeeding clause is evidently intended to authorize the
President, SINGLY, to make temporary appointments ``during the
recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire
at the end of their next session.'' Secondly. If this clause is
to be considered as supplementary to the one which precedes, the
VACANCIES of which it speaks must be construed to relate to the
``officers'' described in the preceding one; and this, we have
seen, excludes from its description the members of the Senate.
Thirdly. The time within which the power is to operate, ``during
the recess of the Senate,'' and the duration of the
appointments, ``to the end of the next session'' of that body,
conspire to elucidate the sense of the provision, which, if it
had been intended to comprehend senators, would naturally have
referred the temporary power of filling vacancies to the recess
of the State legislatures, who are to make the permanent
appointments, and not to the recess of the national Senate, who
are to have no concern in those appointments; and would have
extended the duration in office of the temporary senators to the
next session of the legislature of the State, in whose
representation the vacancies had happened, instead of making it
to expire at the end of the ensuing session of the national
Senate. The circumstances of the body authorized to make the
permanent appointments would, of course, have governed the
modification of a power which related to the temporary
appointments; and as the national Senate is the body, whose
situation is alone contemplated in the clause upon which the
suggestion under examination has been founded, the vacancies to
which it alludes can only be deemed to respect those officers in
whose appointment that body has a concurrent agency with the
President. But lastly, the first and second clauses of the third
section of the first article, not only obviate all possibility
of doubt, but destroy the pretext of misconception. The former
provides, that ``the Senate of the United States shall be
composed of two Senators from each State, chosen BY THE
LEGISLATURE THEREOF for six years''; and the latter directs,
that, ``if vacancies in that body should happen by resignation
or otherwise, DURING THE RECESS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF ANY STATE,
the Executive THEREOF may make temporary appointments until the
NEXT MEETING OF THE LEGISLATURE, which shall then fill such
vacancies.'' Here is an express power given, in clear and
unambiguous terms, to the State Executives, to fill casual
vacancies in the Senate, by temporary appointments; which not
only invalidates the supposition, that the clause before
considered could have been intended to confer that power upon
the President of the United States, but proves that this
supposition, destitute as it is even of the merit of
plausibility, must have originated in an intention to deceive
the people, too palpable to be obscured by sophistry, too
atrocious to be palliated by hypocrisy.
I have taken the pains to select this instance of
misrepresentation, and to place it in a clear and strong light,
as an unequivocal proof of the unwarrantable arts which are
practiced to prevent a fair and impartial judgment of the real
merits of the Constitution submitted to the consideration of the
people. Nor have I scrupled, in so flagrant a case, to allow
myself a severity of animadversion little congenial with the
general spirit of these papers. I hesitate not to submit it to
the decision of any candid and honest adversary of the proposed
government, whether language can furnish epithets of too much
asperity, for so shameless and so prostitute an attempt to
impose on the citizens of America.
PUBLIUS. |
|
|
|
|