Standardized Testing For The Office Of President of the US
In Federalist Paper #69 Alexander Hamilton lays out the difference between a President and a King. At the time of the creation and ratification of the Constitution, many were concerned that the office of president, being held by one person, would become nothing more than a King in disguise. Hamilton takes the time to point out the extremely limited nature of the President to rest any alarm that the office of president would function as a King.
What if we created a standardized test to evaluate our presidents using the standards by which the office was created? Would our presidents pass or fail?
The President or King Standardized Test as authored by Alexander Hamilton:
A President of the United States would be an officer elected by the people for four years; A King is a perpetual and hereditary prince;
A President, as commander-in-chief, would amount to nothing more than
the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as
first General and admiral of the Confederacy; A King’s power extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; A President would be amenable to personal punishment and disgrace; A King is sacred and inviolable; A President would have a limited power upon the acts of the legislative body; A King has an absolute power; A President would have a concurrent power with a branch of the legislature in the formation of treaties; A King has the sole possessor of the power of making treaties; A President would have a concurrent authority with a branch of the legislature in appointing to offices; A King is the sole author of all appointments; A President can confer no privileges whatever;
A King can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect
corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies; A President can prescribe no rules concerning the commerce or currency of the nation;
A King is in several respects the arbiter of commerce, and in this
capacity can establish markets and fairs, can regulate weights and
measures, can lay embargoes for a limited time; A President has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction;
A King is the supreme head and governor of the national church and can
dictate what is lawful and unlawful for the subjects to believe or not
believe; A President’s power is in the hands of the People; A King’s power is limited only by his own will, the power of his throne, and is despotism.Now score your occupant of the White House; is he president or King? _______________
When Hamilton lived, the Presidency was not limited to 4 years, that happened because FDR was elected to his fifth year. Actually FDR was President for life, since he died in office.
ReplyDeleteWilliam
ReplyDeleteA good post and one which touches on history to make the point. I guess history, or rather the interpretation we place on the recorded facts is a fairly safe place from which we can develop a post.
So Hamilton’s writing of No 68 in the Federalist Papers. Your interpretation of the rights and duties of a “King”, and by this I assume you refer to the English Monarchy; appears flawed in many areas. In fact, your argument and that of Hamilton provides far greater powers for the President of your country than does the Westminster system for the ruling monarch.
Your President as CIC can order the military into action but I acknowledge that congress has to approve funding to sustain the operation. The British monarch has absolutely no powers to commit the nation to war.
Just a few of the glaring errors in your list of comparisons. In every example bar one, the powers attributed to the English Monarch either never existed or have been removed by Parliament during and since the end of the English Civil War. The one remaining “Right” on the list, and that only in a small part is the sovereigns right to make appointments. In this area the appointments are very limited and generally include only certain honours such as the Order of the Garter and so on, pretty titles but carrying no power at all.
William my friend, I admire your nation and its constitution ( with certain well documented exceptions!) but rather than universal praise for Hamilton’s views and equally universal condemnation of the principals of a mythical monarchy, why not look to the part of the constitution dealing with the Electoral College? Here, if my interpretation of the constitution is correct, we have a small group who can if they desire, usurp the popular vote for your President and therefore prevent the installation of an elected citizen into the highest office in your country. Divine right of Kings perhaps my friend!
Cheers from Aussie.
Keeping in mind of course that from the signing of the magna carta, which was itself forced on an unpopular king, successive kings from John to Charles I worked tirelessly to walk back the provisions of that document as limited as they were to the common person. The straw of course was during the period known as the eleven year tyranny when Charles I dissolved parliament, lead by decree and installed many unpopular taxes. Sir Oliver and his roundhead supporters defeated the omnipotent power of the king and only with the use of force did the King of that monarchy become a figurehead… of course there are other kings operating in this present day world who are not figureheads and own their power over the people to no one but themselves and of course the threat of state force that they have carefully cultivated…. Until they overstep the mark.
DeleteWhile you may wish to believe that the world is somehow fundamentally different.. Power always attracts people who relish power and rarely does the desire for power stay within specified bounds if it finds a way to assume yet more power or privilege or wealth. While the word ‘King’ is used to denote Omni powers… no title is immune … President Putin seems to be firmly in charge; elected by the popular backing of a pride whipped nationalist majority… and a well regulated press….
As far as the Electoral College goes...The Electoral College is part of the ‘Representative’ government that William blathers on about. As much as it has been hijacked by political parties and the march to a pure democracy, the electoral college is not working as designed any more than the 17th amendment allows for senators to act as representative of the state for which they are elected. Electoral college nominees are elected under the laws of the various states… some states have a winner take all approach to elections, others have more proportional systems. These are laws erected by the individual states…. By the elected state representatives… those representatives from very small districts that are absolutely closest to the people. Of course, some will tell you that republicans own the entire process as they have gerrymandered the entire country…. Yet we still have President Obama and an electorial college that elected him.
It is interesting that you look to history and rightly condemn the adoption of Fiat money as failure in the making yet seem to run headlong in the direction of direct democracy particularly in light of a highly controlled message by a less than honourable media..
Well Barack Obama would fall under the title of a president. He doesn't declare war nor does he raise armies, He has been elected by the electoral college as screwed up as we may feel it is, AND the popular vote twice. He cannot and he will not run for reelection, because he is not a king, and therefore is subject to personal punishment and disgrace. But he has to violate the laws of our country and that he hasn't done. He may have stretched them to the breaking point but precedent has allowed that. Precedent established by both political parties, like it or not the executive order is how presidents get their policies through and have done so since the great depression if not before. Treaties are the sole scope of the legislative body. Obama hasn't signed any treaties with anybody and if he did they would have to be ratified by our congress to be valid, that is just the law my friends. This president like any other has to have all worthwhile appointments pass through the legislative brnch. I guess William you would be relating this to a couple of NLRB appointees earlier in Obama's term, appointments made under terms set by precedent, set by one republican named George Bush who also made some January appointments to the NLRB. Our president definitely has nor exercises any type of religious jurisdiction. Come on really? This is probably the least religious man to hold the office in our lifetime. My question is this. What makes him any less right to say really nothing about god or religion but GW Bush and others are right to invoke God, the Lord and other religious aspects into every decision made, every speech given. Remember we are not a Christian nation, we have no official religion, but we are a nation of Christians and people of other beliefs. So what is right about constantly invoking religion? And finally our president and the power he has is totally in the hands of the people. He was re-elected. He can be impeached by a body, the legislative branch, that represents the people. They don't impeach because there has been no laws broken under this president. Because you don't agree doesn't make a broken law. Because a group of talking heads says so, doesn't make a broken law, because your president, representatives and senators are not of your political party doesn't make you un represented as you had every right as every other registered voter did to cast your ballot and voice your opinion, because your party lost doesn't make you un represented. Barak Obama is definitely a president not a king. Why did I even honor this crap with a legitimate response.
Delete