Federalist Paper #70: One Person Holds Executive Authority
The Constitution gives ALL federal executive authority to one person.
Federalist Paper Number 70 is an extensive discussion of why it is important to have only one person hold all the executive power. I have put a large number of excerpts from #70 below, but I encourage people to read the entire Paper.
The author’s explanation of why different people, who view the same facts, arrive at such different conclusions is fascinating.
Possible Distribution of Executive Power
As the Constitution was being formed, there were several options for the executive branch of government. Executive power could be given to a single person, Or, it could be given to “two or more people with equal status and authority. Or it could be given ostensibly to one man who is subject, in whole or part, to the control and cooperation of other people who act as counselors to him.”*
Lessons from History
“History teaches us little about this topic. Looking at the experiences of other nations, we learn that a plural executive is not a good idea…History gives us no examples of any real advantages of a plural executive.”
Lessons from Psychology
“If we leave the lessons of history and use only logic and good sense, we discover more reasons to reject the idea of a plural Executive of any kind.
“Wherever two or more persons are engaged in a common pursuit, there is always danger of differences of opinion. If it is a public trust or office, where they have equal rank and authority, there is a real danger of personal envy and even animosity. Envy and animosity often cause bitter disagreements. The people who disagree lose some respect and authority. And they distract from the plans and operations needed to attain the goal.
“Let’s say that two or more people must serve as the top executives of a country. During an emergency, envy and animosity could slow down or even block important government actions. And worse, they might split the community into violent and irreconcilable factions that support the different individuals who compose the executive.
“Men often oppose a thing just because they had no part in planning it, or because people they dislike may have planned it. But if they have been consulted and have disapproved, their opposition becomes an absolute duty of self-love. They feel bound in honor and personal infallibility to defeat a plan that is contrary to their beliefs.
“This psychological reaction can lead men to take desperate actions. And men often have enough followers to sacrifice the interests of society to their vanity, conceit, and obstinacy…
“There are no advantages to disagreements in the executive branch. There are only disadvantages. There is no point at which they cease to operate.
“Disagreements about a specific plan would weaken the execution of the plan, from the first step to the end. Vigor and expedition are necessary executive qualities. Disagreements among the executives would block these, without any counterbalancing good…
“These comments principally apply to the first case, a plural executive where each person has equal authority. Few people want this type of executive.
“But if the ostensible executive needs the approval of an executive council before he can act, most of the same comments apply. An artful cabal in the council could distract and weaken the whole system of administration. If no such cabal existed, the diversity of views and opinions, alone, would make the executive feeble and slow to act.
Plurality Hides Faults, Responsibility
“But one of the strongest objections to both types of plural executive is that it tends to conceal faults and destroy responsibility.
“There are two types of responsibility: moral and legal. Irresponsibility leads to censure and to punishment. Censure is the more important, especially in an elective office. An irresponsible man in public office will more often act in a way that makes him unworthy of trust than in a way that makes him subject to legal punishment.
“But when more than one person holds the position of Executive, it is difficult to figure out who is morally or legally responsible. The people in the executive will accuse each other. It often becomes impossible to determine who to blame or punish for a harmful act. Blame is shifted from one to another with so much dexterity that the public doesn’t know who made the decision.
“The circumstances leading to any national misfortune can be extremely complicated. We could clearly see that there has been mismanagement. But if several people were involved in making the decision, it may be impossible to say who is truly responsible for the evil…
“The governor of New York is coupled with a council for one duty, appointing to offices. And we have seen the mischiefs described. Scandalous appointments to important offices. Some cases, indeed, have been so flagrant that everyone agrees they are improper. When asked about them, the governor has blamed the members of the council who blamed it on his nomination.
Meanwhile, the people have no idea who picked such unqualified and improper people.
“The people have two securities that public officials will use their delegated powers faithfully. A plural Executive tends to deprive the people of these securities.
“First. The restraints of public opinion lose their effectiveness because it is difficult to divide censure among a number of people.
“Second. It will be difficult to discover which public official is responsible for misconduct, so they can be removed from office or punished, if appropriate.
“…in a republic, every executive should be held personally responsible for his behavior in office…In the American republic, a council would greatly diminish the responsibility of the Chief Executive himself…It is far safer for the people to watch one person. And a plural Executive is more dangerous than friendly to liberty…
“When power is placed in a small number of men, a talented leader can easily get them to agree to a common enterprise. A small group is easier to abuse and more dangerous when abused, than a single man. One man can be closely watched and more easily suspected.”
Most importantly, “one man can be more decisive, keep secrets, and act faster than any greater number of people. And as the number of people increases, these qualities diminish.”
*all excerpts are from Federalist Paper Number 70, The Federalist Papers; Modern English Edition Two, 2008.