The Federalist #67
The Federalist No. 67
The Executive Department
New York Packet Tuesday, March 11, 1788 [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 party1; 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 all 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
Constitution2, 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." Second. 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. Third. 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 last,
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
1. See CATO, No.
V.
2. Article I, section 3, clause 1.
Previous Next
Index
|