Читать книгу American Democracy in Context - Joseph A. Pika - Страница 73

The Articles of Confederation did not provide for an independent executive branch. Furthermore, most state governors were selected by the legislature, had little or no veto power over legislation, and served short terms.³⁸ By the time the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, some believed the pendulum had swung too far in the direction of limiting executive power. For example, Thomas Jefferson had served as governor of Virginia for two years and experienced firsthand the powerlessness of that position. Though still wary of a strong executive (or governor), Jefferson wrote that his experience with the 173 members of the Virginia legislature had convinced him that “173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one.”³⁹ This concentration of power in the legislature ran counter to the idea of separation of powers and resulted in unchecked legislative authority. Rising concern about this issue made arguments for a strong executive branch at the Constitutional Convention more palatable than they would have been immediately after finalizing the Declaration of Independence.

The Virginia Plan had called for an executive branch to be selected by Congress, without specifying its size or tenure or its specific powers. The New Jersey Plan called for a plural, rather than a single, chief executive to be selected by Congress. In discussions, some individual delegates led the charge for a stronger, more independent executive branch than that contemplated by either the New Jersey Plan or the original Virginia Plan, but the delegates remained divided on the issue of executive power through August.

The delegates eventually agreed to a single chief executive, to be called the president—a strategic choice to diffuse concerns about a strong executive. A derivation of the Latin word praesidere, president means “to sit at the head of” and “to defend.” President therefore implied passive guardianship rather than aggressive leadership. George Washington, who served a mostly passive, ceremonial function at the Constitutional Convention, had been its president. Despite agreement on what to call the chief executive, the delegates remained divided over what powers to give, and how to select, the president.⁴⁰

In a compromise that helped to establish our current system of checks and balances, the convention agreed to split a number of traditionally executive powers, such as declaring war, making treaties, and appointing officials, and allow the president and Congress to share them. Thus, Congress would declare war, but the president would wage it. Presidents would negotiate treaties, but those treaties were subject to ratification by the Senate. The president would nominate ambassadors and other officials, but they could serve only if the Senate confirmed them. Nonetheless, the question remained: Who would select the president?

No issue perplexed the delegates more than determining how the president should be chosen.⁴¹ Additionally, how long should the president serve? Should he be eligible for reelection? Selection by Congress had been the default position throughout the summer. Advocates of a more powerful executive feared that this method of selection would perpetuate a model of executive subservience to the legislature. Popular election—a natural alternative—posed its own problems. First, it would give the large states an advantage over the small ones. The three most populous states had nearly as many eligible voters as the remaining ten states combined.⁴² Small states thus feared that they would have little influence in the selection of a president. Second, the framers assumed that voters would be ill-informed and motivated more by local interests than the common good (an example of consensus among the delegates). George Mason scoffed that letting the people choose the president would be “as un-natural” as referring “a trial of colours to a blind man.”⁴³

The Committee on Postponed Matters finally proposed a compromise that won the support of the delegates: the president (and vice president—the first time this post had been recommended) would be chosen by an Electoral College consisting of electors from each of the states. The number of electors from each state would be equal to the combined total of that state’s representatives and senators in Congress. Each state would select these electors according to rules established by its own state legislature.

Similar debates ensued about the federal judiciary. Most delegates agreed that some sort of federal judiciary was necessary. But should it consist of one court of last resort or a broader system of federal courts? How should judges be selected—by Congress or the president? If Congress had the power to select, should both houses of Congress participate or only one house? If only one of them participated, which one should it be?

Answers to these questions, as to others, came in the form of compromises and creative solutions. The Constitution created one Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide whether to create other, lower federal courts. Judges for the court were to be nominated by the president, but the nomination was to be subject to confirmation by the Senate. (See Chapter 14.) The framers also embraced federalism (see Chapter 3)—a creative solution that gave some powers to the national government and others to the states. Federalism allowed proponents of a strong national government as well as proponents of states’ rights to feel that they had won on some issues.