The official start of President Obama’s second term is fast approaching. Learn more about the history and meaning of Inauguration Day with this lesson packed with engaging and informative resources! Test your knowledge of the countdown to Inauguration Day, analyze the Oath of Office, identify inaugural speeches from American history, and think critically about constitutional processes.

Student Handout (PDF)

It has become evident to the delegates that they cannot make the decisions about the executive independent of a conversation that discusses the executive’s election, term, powers, and removal in a holistic way. Thus the Brearly Committee is tasked with such a conversation. The result – Article II of the Constitution. Read on for some of the key points that were discussed. Can you spot the things that have changed since the original conversation and can you think of instances when some of the checks & balances set up in this Article have been applied?

How shall the executive be elected and for how long?

Alexander Hamilton was worried the executive would be “a Monster elected for seven years, and ineligible afterwards; having great powers, in appointments to office, & continually tempted by this constitutional disqualification to abuse them in order to subvert the Government.” Thus he saw none better than to let the highest number of ballots, whether a majority or not, appoint the President. Thus it was agreed that “In every case after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes shall be vice-president: but if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them the vice-president.”

James Wilson reminds the delegates they did not want an aristocracy so they did not want the Senate to elect the president. Concurrently, Edmund Randolph stated “We have in some revolutions of this plan made a bold stroke for monarchy. We are now doing the same for an aristocracy.” Thus it was decided that “Each state shall appoint in such a manner as its Legislature shall direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and members of the House of Representatives, to which the State may be entitled in the Legislature.”

Later it was agreed that the “Senate shall choose the Vice-President in the event of a tie for the Vice-Presidency.”

What shall be the powers of the Executive Office?

Much of the discussion regarding the powers of the executive office was related to separation of powers between the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch. It had been proposed the Vice President act as the President of the Senate. George Mason stated that he believed that if the vice president was President of the Senate than the powers were not really divided.

On nominations – Rufus King was worried that “the people [would] be alarmed at an unnecessary creation of new Corps which must increase the [expense] as well as influence of the Government.”

Both men were overruled. The committee agreed that allowing the Vice President to serve as President of the Senate was a check on the Legislative Branch. And requiring a 2/3 consenting vote from the Legislative Branch would check the Executive Branch on treaties and nominations.

What is the process for removal from office?

The delegates were in agreement that they need to create a process for removal of the executive if they were to commit “high crimes [and misdemeanors against] the State”. Barring a resignation, they agreed there should be a trial. They were not however in agreement of who should proceed over the trial. James Madison believed that a trial by the Senate would make the executive “improperly dependant” on them in day to day business. He preferred that the Supreme Court hold the trial.

Gouverneur Morris disagreed because he thought that the Supreme Court was too few in number and might be subject to corruption and others added that they had already given the executive the power to appoint the judges.

After discussion, it was decided that the House of Representatives would be responsible to request impeachment and that the Senate would hold the trial.

For more resources on how to teach about Article II and the Executive Branch – check out our website: http://www.articleii.org/

For more detailed information on the Constitutional Convention, please visit Prof. Gordon Lloyd’s web companion to the Philadelphia Convention.

Philadelphia –

Establishing the Presidency

One of the most persistent topics discussed in the Philadelphia Convention was the structure of the presidency. The Framers had grappled with this topic on June 1, 2, 4, 9, and 18, and then again on July 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, and 26. The main issues were questions of the President’s re-eligibility, term of office, method of election, and powers of office. Not only did the delegates debate various alternatives to resolve each of these issues, they also debated which of these issues should be resolved first. They ended up repeatedly returning to each.

In early June, delegates decided that the Executive would be one individual (rather than a committee), who would serve a seven-year term and be ineligible for re-election, but reached no decision concerning the method of election. After working through several other alternatives, the Framers in late July returned to the position that the President should be elected by the national legislature for a seven-year, non-renewable term. On July 24, one suggestion was that members of Congress be chosen by lot to select the President, to which Rufus King replied, “We ought to be governed by reason, not by chance.”

On Wednesday, July 25, the delegates returned yet again to the method of selecting the President. James Madison summarized the alternatives and objections to each. If the President were selected by the national legislature, or by the legislatures of the states, or by the governors of the states, then he would be subservient to the selecting group because they would only elect someone whom they expected to be able to control.

The result would be a likelihood of corruption and misconduct in office, and not the separation of powers that allowed each branch to function as a watchdog over the others.

Madison argued that this left two options: direct election by the people, or appointment by a group of electors chosen by the people. The convention’s delegates distrusted direct democracy. They were determined that the new government would embody republican principles, but believed that most people were unlikely to make wise choices in direct election of the President. Another argument against direct election by the people was that it would result in a disadvantage for smaller states. Madison’s notes reflect that, following his July 25 speech advocating appointment of the President by a group of electors chosen by the people, Gouverneur Morris supported a similar plan: “He [Morris] considered an election by the people as the best, by the Legislature as the worst, mode…” On July 19, Morris had explained why the President should not be dependent for his position on the will of Congress: “It is necessary then that the Executive Magistrate [President] should be the guardian of the people, even of the lower classes, against Legislative tyranny, against the Great and the wealthy who in the course of things will necessarily compose the Legislative body. Wealth tends to corrupt the mind and nourish its love of power, and to stimulate it to oppression… The Executive therefore ought to be so constituted as to be the great protector of the Mass of the people.”

On Thursday, July 26, after reviewing once again the various alternatives for electing the President, George Mason concluded that election by the national legislature was the best method, and that he be ineligible for re-election. At this point Benjamin Franklin stated that for an elected official to step down from office and return to the mass of the people was actually a promotion. “In free Governments the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors & sovereigns. For the former therefore to return among the latter was not to degrade but to promote them.”

After repeatedly wrestling with the question of how to elect the President, the Convention on July 26 referred the question to the Committee of Detail. The Convention adjourned from July 26 until August 6, instructing the Committee of Detail to “prepare and report the Constitution.” This committee, having been formed on July 24, was assigned to draft a written constitution based on the 23 resolutions that had been approved through four weeks of vigorous debate. John Rutledge of South Carolina, Edmund Randolph of Virginia, Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts, Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, and James Wilson of Pennsylvania labored over this task.

Using the Articles of Confederation, Virginia Plan, the debated resolutions, and the state constitutions, Randolph prepared a draft, which Wilson edited substantially. The Committee then made further improvements, resulting in the August 6 Report. These five men had a remarkable opportunity to apply their judgment to shape the Constitution. As they began, James Wilson reminded participants “We are providing a constitution for future generations, and not merely for the peculiar circumstances of the moment.”

How did this committee resolve the question of how to elect the President? In Article X of the Committee Report presented on August 6, they wrote, “…He shall be elected by ballot by the Legislature. He shall hold his office during the term of seven years; but shall not be elected a second time.” This early draft of the Constitution would be the subject of continuing debate and revision.

For more detailed information on the Constitutional Convention, please visit Prof. Gordon Lloyd’s web companion to the Philadelphia Convention.