Paper70

= = Irtaza Khan = "__**The Executive Department Further Considered"**__ =
 * ____ Federalist Paper No. 70 ____**

__Summary__
Federalist No. 70 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton. It was published on March 15, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all the Federalist Papers were published. Its title is, "The Executive Department Further Considered", and it is the fourth in a series of 11 essays discussing the powers and limitations of the Executive branch. The essay deals with the question of a plural executive. Hamilton argues that having more than one president, "tends to conceal faults, and destroy responsibility." He states that a single president would better be suited to wield the full potential of his power in a quick and efficient way, without falling into endless dispute with other executives with the same power. He also warns that when dealing with more than one leader, "there is always difference of opinion." Federalist No. 70 suggests that a strong and energetic executive branch requires unity, duration in office, adequate resources, and sufficient powers.

__Strongest Arguments__
- Before the Constitution was written, many agreed that New York's single Executive was one of the most admirable features of state government.

- Hamilton claims that there is the matter of expense. Those who recommend a council form of Executive admit that the council should be large. That being so, the salaries of the council members would exceed the country's budget.

- Two people, granted equal power and authority, are bound to differ. Dual presidency would result in growth of conflicting ideas. Plurality is good in the legislature because it promotes discussion and refines ideas.

- In case of war, when so much depends upon a strong Presidency, divisiveness could destroy the national security.

__Opposing Arguments__
-The Anti-Federalist Papers are a collection of articles, written in opposition to the ratification of the 1787 United States Constitution. Paper No. 70, in opposition to Federalist Paper 70, arguments included were:

- President is given too many powers including: -Commander in Chief of the army, navy, and militia; with - Power of making treaties and of - granting pardons - Veto law

- Due to this, the Anti-Federalists believed that a President was trying to rule as a King with the title of a president. - The "President", they believed was like the King of Great Britain, whom they had just gained independence from - A king would result in a scene of horror, confusion and anarchy

__Validation of the Federalist Arguments__
Federalists believed that a single President was necessary to lead a country into prosperity and stability. Ancient civilizations including Sparta which consisted of a oligarchy and Rome which consisted of two counsels, anarchy always followed prosperity. In Sparta, the ruling of five men called ephros caused arguments resulting in despair and an end of Spartan culture and civilization. During Caesars rule of Rome, he declared himself as a dictator of the two councils appointed. This resulted in inflation, barbarian attacks, war losses and many more controversies. These justifications prove that a single president elected every four years with limitations on powers, would result in perseverance. Limitation of power would be done by "Checks and Balances" which appointed as well as limited the rights of each branch of the government.

__Current Issues__
Anti-Federalist feared a single president, arguing that such a decision may lead into anarchy and supreme rule. Such circumstances were prevented by a procedure called "Checks and Balances." This procedure, even today, helps to regulate the government, assigning and limiting powers. A single president has the right to make treaties with foreign nations, grant pardons, veto laws and more. Along with these powers, certain limitations have been placed on the executive branch including, making and interpreting laws. These laws prevent a single president to gain supreme rule. But, if these rules are broken, the legislative branch has the right to impeach the president. Checks and Balances, since the beginning has been consistent to regulate our government, even with a single president.