Federalist No. 70, titled "The Executive Department Further Considered", is an essay written by Alexander Hamilton arguing that a unitary executive is consistent with a republican form of government. It was originally published on March 15, 1788, in The New York Packet under the pseudonym Publius as part of The Federalist Papers and as the fourth in Hamilton's series of eleven essays discussing executive power.

As part of the Federalists' effort to encourage the ratification of the Constitution, Hamilton wrote Federalist No. 70 to refute the argument that a unitary executive would be too similar to the British monarchy and to convince the states of the necessity of unity in the executive branch.

Summary Federalist No. 70 emphasizes the structure of the executive. Offering a counterpoint to the view that "a vigorous executive is inconsistent with the genius of republican government", Hamilton proclaims "Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government". Federalist No. 70 does not go into detail about the separation of powers.

Historical background

In the founding era most state constitutions were hostile to a unitary executive, seeing it as too similar to the monarchic power recently overcome, and preferring weak executives.

During the Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph, who presented the Virginia Plan to the Convention in May 1787, was the most outspoken opponent of the unitary executive, arguing that it would be unpopular with the people and could easily become monarchical.Beeman (2009), p. 128: While Randolph agreed with Wilson that the executive branch needed to have “vigor, dispatch, and responsibility,” he was dead set against the accumulation of executive power in the hands of a single person. With images of King George III still imprinted on his memory, he believed that a unitary executive contained within it “the foetus of monarchy.” Others, including Hamilton, argued that one strong leader would be more decisive and accountable. James Wilson, seconded by Charles Pinckney, proposed "a national executive to consist of a single person".Farrand vol. 1, 63-66Beeman (2009), p. 127Prakash (1993), p. 998

Although several delegates opposed the unitary executive, Wilson's proposal was approved by a vote of 7 to 3.Beeman (2009), p. 142

Philosophical influences

In Federalist No. 70, Hamilton cites an influential but lesser-known writer Jean-Louis de Lolme to support his argument that a unitary executive will have the greatest accountability to the people.Corwin, Edward Samuel. "President, office and powers." (1948): [Hamilton] expressed entire agreement with De Lolme's contention that "the executive power is more easily confined when it is ONE"; that it is far more safe there should be a single object for the jealousy and watchfulness of the people, and, in a word, that all multiplication of the Executive is rather dangerous than friendly to liberty. "

Harvey Mansfield speculated that David Hume, John Locke and Montesquieu, although not cited by name on Federalist No. 70, may be counted among the "politicians and statesmen who are the most celebrated for the soundness of their principles and [...] have declared in favor of a single executive and a numerous legislature".Mansfield (1988), p. 253

Hamilton's argument for a unitary executive Hamilton says a strong executive must have a single leader because "unity is conducive to energy...[d]ecision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number." Hamilton did not provide a specific definition for "executive power", but some historians and legal scholars say "unity" was given effect by the Vesting Clause.

In other essays Hamilton discusses in more detail the three other ingredients of energy mentioned in Federalist No. 71: duration, an adequate provision for its support (salary) and competent powers.

Energy

Alexander Hamilton wrote Federalist No. 70 to defend the unitary structure of the executive from critics by arguing that unity was a necessary ingredient of energy. Energy in the executive, he said, is "the leading character in the definition of good government" because it is "essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks...to the steady administration of the laws; to the protection of property... to the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of ambition, of faction, and of anarchy". He argued that "decision, activity, secrecy, dispatch" are weakened or diminished when power is shared by multiple leaders.

"Foreign attacks" The core argument of Federalist No. 70 was that a unitary executive was a necessary ingredient for a quick, decisive executive to conduct war.Pffifner (2011): [Hamilton] contrasted the administrative function of the executive, and its need for unity, with the proper function of Congress, which was to provide "deliberation and wisdom" in the making of laws. In the decision about whether to go to war, the slow deliberation and wisdom of the many people in the legislature were beneficial. To conduct war, however, a single leader who could act quickly and decisively, with "[d]ecision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch," was necessary. Thus, hierarchical control and discipline are the marks of effective administration, particularly in national security.

"Administration of laws" Responding to modern debates about the nature of "executive power" Steven Calabresi and Saikrishna Prakash point to Hamilton's comment that "energy in the executive... is not less essential to the steady administration of laws", and his argument that an "artful cabal" forming in a plural executive would "enervate the whole system of administration".

Accountability Hamilton, in response to opponents of the unitary executive, argues in Federalist No. 70 that a plural executive leads to a lack of accountability.Prakash (1993), p.999: Defending the Constitution's creation of a unitary executive, Hamilton wrote [in Federalist No. 70] ... that "the executive power is more easily confined when it is one." Hamilton bolsters his argument by claiming that misconduct and disagreements among members of the council of Rome contributed to the Roman Empire's decline. He warns that America should be more afraid of reproducing the plural executive structure of Rome than of the "ambition of a single individual."

According to Hamilton, a unitary executive is best-suited to promoting accountability in government because it is easier to point blame at one person than to distinguish fault among members of a group. Because a unitary executive cannot "cloak" his failings by blaming council members, he has a strong incentive towards good behavior in office. Hamilton concludes the essay by reminding us that "the UNITY of the executive of this State was one of the best of the distinguishing features of our constitution."Pffifner (2011): "Unity is also necessary for accountability, and with a plural executive, 'there would be no responsibility whatever in the executive department, an idea inadmissible in a free government.' Any council would be a "clog upon" the executive and a "cloak to his faults." Hamilton concluded Federalist No. 70 by asserting that 'the UNITY of the executive of this State was one of the best of the distinguishing features of our constitution."

Support Hamiltonian support can be defined as a presidential salary, which insulates government officials from corruption by attracting capable, honest men to office. According to Hamilton, public service does not provide men with fame or glory, so ample pay is necessary to attract talented politicians. Hamilton further expands upon his arguments for executive support in his essay Federalist No. 73.

Contemporaneous opposition to the unitary executive

The Anti-Federalist Papers and opposition to the Constitution

While most of the Anti-Federalists' arguments did concern the presidency, some Anti-Federalist publications did directly contest Hamilton's position in Federalist 70 for unity in the executive branch.

In response to the exclusion of an executive council in the Constitution, Mason published his "Objections to the Constitution" on November 22, 1787, in the Virginia Journal.Mason, George. "Objections to the Constitution of Government formed by the Convention." The Essential Antifederalist. By W. B. Allen, Gordon Lloyd, and Margie Lloyd. Lanham: UP of America, 1985. 12. Print. In this manuscript, originally written on the back of an early draft of the Constitution, Mason warned that the lack of a council would make for an unadvised president, who would act within the interests of friends, rather than the people at large:

The President of the United States has no Constitutional Council, a thing unknown in any safe and regular government. He will therefore be unsupported by proper information and advice, and will generally be directed by minions and favorites...

Richard Henry Lee, another prominent Anti-Federalist, exchanged letters with Mason, in which he too expressed concern about the unitary executive, supporting the constitutional addition of a privy council.Lee, Richard Henry. The Essential Antifederalist. By W. B. Allen, Gordon Lloyd, and Margie Lloyd. Lanham: UP of America, 1985. 12. Print. In Anti-Federalist No. 74, titled "The President as a Military King," Philadelphiensis (likely, Benjamin Workman) wrote primarily against the president's military powers, but added that the lack of a constitutional executive council would add to the danger of a powerful presidency:

And to complete his uncontrolled sway, [the President] is neither restrained nor assisted by a privy council, which is a novelty in government. I challenge the politicians of the whole continent to find in any period of history a monarch more absolute. . . .

On December 18, 1787, after the Convention of Pennsylvania, which ultimately ratified the Constitution, the minority published its reasons for dissent to its constituents."The Address and Reasons for Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania." The Essential Antifederalist. By W. B. Allen, Gordon Lloyd, and Margie Lloyd. Lanham: UP of America, 1985. 12. Print. In this address, written most likely by Samuel Bryan and signed by twenty-one members of the minority, the lack of an executive council is enumerated as the twelfth of fourteen reasons for dissent:

12. That the legislative, executive, and judicial powers be kept separate; and to this end that a constitutional council be appointed, to advise and assist the president, who shall be responsible for the advice they give, hereby the senators would be relieved from almost constant attendance; and also that the judges be made completely independent.

Though he was in England at the time of the Anti-Federalist Papers, Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet Common Sense served as motivation for independence from British rule during the American Revolution, also opposed the unitary executive. While this position was already evidenced from his role as Clerk to the Pennsylvania Assembly during the writing of Pennsylvania's 1776 Constitution,Tietjen, Gregory. Introduction. Common Sense. By Thomas Paine. N.p.: Fall River, 2013. vii-xxxi. Print. he clearly stated it in a letter to George Washington in 1796. In this letter, Paine argued for a plural executive on the grounds that a unitary executive would become head of a party and that a republic should not debase itself by obeying an individual.

Applications and modern relevance

The war on terror

Federalist No.70 as a justification for executive power