Sherry Chandler » We are a United States, Not a United Kingdom

We are a United States, Not a United Kingdom

Adam Cohen in the NYTimes:

Given how intent the president is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitution’s framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called “the foetus of monarchy.”

The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. They were haunted by Europe’s history of conflicts started by self-aggrandizing kings. John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, noted in Federalist No. 4 that “absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal.”

Many critics of the Iraq war are reluctant to suggest that President Bush went into it in anything but good faith. But James Madison, widely known as the father of the Constitution, might have been more skeptical. “In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed,” he warned. “It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle.”

When they drafted the Constitution, Madison and his colleagues wrote their skepticism into the text. In Britain, the king had the authority to declare war, and raise and support armies, among other war powers. The framers expressly rejected this model and gave these powers not to the president, but to Congress.

Is the United States exceptional?
The Presidential Empowerment Act
Here comes the new AG,
Madison on war and the executive
Above the Law?

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

2 Comments

  • 1. Charlie H replies at 24th July 2007, 11:10 am :

    I certainly don’t disagree with anything Cohen said here. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about why it is we call the president “MISTER President” instead of Your Highness. The growing imperial nature of the office of President troubles me. In a similar vein, will our future presidents be, in this order?
    Hillary Clinton
    Hillary Clinton
    Jeb Bush
    Jeb Bush
    Chelsea Clinton
    Chelsea Clinton
    Jenna Bush
    Jenna Bush
    Anybody see anything wrong with this?

  • 2. sherry replies at 24th July 2007, 2:15 pm :

    Oh jeez, the thought of a Jenna-Bush presidency is terrifying, Charlie H. But then, I suppose she’ll reform at 40 like her Daddy did.

    But to treat a serious question seriously, it seems to me that we become more and more dynastic here. And it is the dynastic aspect of a Hillary presidency that worries me.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <strong>