The Trump Presidency In The Eyes Of The Founders

Introduction

“Covfefe.” One tweet released at 2 am with no context dominated the news cycle for weeks. This seemingly insignificant word grabbed the interest of the nation for only one reason. It was tweeted by the President of the United States of America. The Presidency has become a focal point of our political system. Particularly with our current administration, every action of the office of the executive is the central theme of the nation’s attention. The shift in the attention and importance that the American people place on the Presidency prompts the question, is this what the founders intended with the establishment of the Executive Branch? My thesis is that if the framers of the constitution could view the power of the executive branch at this time in history they would find it contrary to their intentions as portrayed in the arguments delivered in the federalist papers and the powers specified in the constitution.

Basic Principles of the Constitution

Since the colonies first settled in America they have always had an inclination towards self-government and representation. This can be seen as early as the development of the Virginia House of Burgesses or the alliance of the New England Confederation. A disposition for self-governance coupled with resistance to English parliament passing laws that directly affected the lives of colonists without representation resulted in the eventual Revolutionary War. The world watched post revolution America and fully expected to see the state deteriorate. There was a sense of urgency to set up a strong government that would not fall to the same follies of the British parliament and monarchy and would please Federalist and Anti-Federalists alike. The Constitution was born from this need and a government system was built with a Federal government made of three branches. The intentions of the framers in creating the three branches of government that we have today was to set up a system of checks and balances to ensure that no one body would have too much power. Their intent was to have three parts of a whole where not one branch held too much important. The first three articles of the constitution specify the roles of the three branches.

The Legislative branch was designed to be the most powerful because it is intended to be the peoples branch. The legislative branch is meant to be the direct representation of the people. Article I, section 8 details the powers granted to congress of which there are two kinds. Enumerated powers are powers that are specifically listed in the constitution including the ability to tax and spend money raised by taxes, the power to borrow money, regulate commerce, etc. Implied powers under the Necessary and Proper clause which allows the legislative branch to adopt any powers needed to carry out their enumerated powers. Additionally, Article I lists the powers denied congress. Congress cannot ban the important of slaves until 1808 (this was done to appease anti-federalists as they were mostly slave owners), they also cannot pass expos facto laws, they cannot deny due process, cannot tax interstate commerce, cannot favor a state, cannot offer titles of nobility, etc. Article I contains the most detailed description of a branch of government and because of this is assumed to be the most important or vital branch.

In slightly less detail, Article II describes the intention of the framers on the subject of this essay, the Executive Branch. It lists specific requirements of the Executive Branch including terms, succession, age, powers and duties, impeachment powers, etc. It is important to note that the only powers that are specifically granted to the President in the constitution is the power to Veto, the power to Pardon, the power to nominate judicial candidates and the power to propose treaties. Finally, the least detailed branch of government is the Judicial Branch. Article III determines that the Judicial Branch would interpret the law. The legislative is to create the law, the executive to execute it, and the judicial to interpret it.

Limited Government

A huge concern for the anti-federalist was having a limited government. Anti-federalist did not want another monarch or dictator and wanted each state to have the most say and control over their own governance. While both federalists and anti-federalists sought a government that had limited power, anti-federalists were deeply concerned about having a government much like the one they just overthrew and had concerns of too much centralized power, they intended that the governments involvement in politics would extend only so far as to protect individual rights.

Federalists tried to alleviate Anti-Federalist fears of a “monarch” President through a series of essays called The Federalist Papers written by Alexander Hamilton. The Federalist Papers each addressed a concern that the anti-Federalists had about centralized power. Federalist Paper Number 69 clarifies that the difference between a President and a King is that a President is an elected monarch who does not serve indefinitely and who does not have a divine right to rule. Paper Number 70 goes on to explain that a Unitary executive would ensure accountability in government and would offer the people a defense against legislative encroaches. Paper Number 71 and 72 explain how the limits to terms and reelection will result in a President whose focus is to maintain the satisfaction of his voters. Papers Number 73 and 74 explain the basis President’s veto and pardoning power – a check against the legislative branch.

I believe the Federalists Papers ultimately portray an ideal of the President not as a person with particularly a lot of power but rather as a person who acts as a check against the legislative branch. They reassure anti-Federalists that the President is not intended to have unchecked, dictator-like power but rather just be independent enough to show mercy and compassion at times when a group of people may curb that inclination with argument.

Expansion of the Executive Branch and the two “C’s”

In The Presidency and the Political System, Jeffrey Tulis writes about the concept of the two constitutional presidencies. The first constitutional presidency is the “Big C. ” The Big C is executive power constrained within the confines of the enumerated powers listed in the constitution. The Constitution places congress first and the President second. Under the second Constitutional Presidency, the President’s power is expanded and the executives power encompasses all assumed and unchallenged powers. The founder’s intent was the presidency as depicted in the constitution and in the Federalist papers. This is contrary to the modern Presidency which has grown since Franklin D. Roosevelt expanded the welfare state.

Intention of the Framers

Interest in politics peaks every four years at the start as the office of the Executive is open for new candidates. The founders did not intend for the executive branch to be the nations central political institution. One can argue that the lack of specified powers in Article II of the constitution portrays the founder’s intention that the executive branch not be one of vital importance; especially in contrast to Article I’s details on the powers of the Legislative Branch. However, as America’s society and position in the world changed Presidential power has expanded. Part of the blame for this can be attributed to the ambiguity in Article II. The Presidency has become “the lightning rod of national politics”.

Contradictions to the Modern Presidency

Our current President is a perfect example of what the framers would not want. Nelson writes that a concern of the framers was a demagoguery leader. That is, a leader that is liked by the people and is therefore a majority tyrant. While a demagogue in itself is not a bad thing, a “hard” demagogue is. This is because hard demagogue’s attempt to create and encourage divisions to build and maintain their constituency. A hard demagogue can be right or left but ultimately, they pit the “compassionate, moral and progressive” against the “insensitive, selfish or backwards”.

Donald Trump, whether you love him or hate him, has been very efficient in connecting directly with the American people. During his 2016 campaign the media was surprised by his lack of use of ad campaigns and his excessive use of Twitter. While much controversy surrounded his use of Twitter his following grew to nearly thirty-two million people. This allowed him to speak directly to voters. He effectively cut out the middle man, the media, and was able to spread his message without filters. I would argue that Trump has been the most effective president at using the media to build a wide reaching and direct connections to his voters.

I would suggest that Donald Trump is exactly the demagogue leader that the founders would not want. Created by factions he maintains his authority by communicating directly with American’s and fanning the flames of controversy. His rhetoric is evidence enough of the discord he sews amongst Americans. Additionally, his action shows a complete disregard for the checks and balances in place against the Executive branch. If it was up to him he would do as he pleases completely unchecked. Section VII:

Conclusion

In conclusion, the framers of the constitution did not intend for the office of the Executive to be the focal point of American government. The intent of the framers based on the federalist papers and the constitution suggest that they wanted the Presidency to be a position of little importance. One of symbolism and mercy rather than one of authority and focus. However, it was ambiguity in the constitution that resulted in the expansion of power our President currently enjoys. The Trump Presidency would be the exact opposite of what the founders wanted a he sets the precedent of greater expansion on Presidental influence and fans the flames of factions within the US.