Federalist 70 Explained | Why Does the U.S. Have a Unitary Executive?

0:00 Welcome back to another episode of the Bill of Rights Institute’s. Close Reads. Today we’re going to look again at The Federalist Papers. This time we’re going to take a look at Federalist number 70, which looks at the executive branch and particularly why we have a unitary or singular executive. Let’s take a look.

0:21 The central question we’re going to focus on today is why the Constitution calls for a unitary executive. And again, by unitary we just mean one Publius talks about in several papers, why it is that we have an executive in the first place, what their role is. And it kind of comes back to this idea that their role is to execute the law, hence executive. That makes sense.

0:41 But how you go about doing that was a contentious debate. It was a debate that sort of went through the Constitutional Convention. They went back and forth, should it be a council of individuals? Should it be a singular President, but with a council that he has to go and talk to every time he has to make a decision. These different models are used in different states. But the Constitutional Convention came up with the plan of having a singular executive.

1:02 Publius’ goal in this paper is to defend why that’s important. And so he’s going to step through what it means to have that unitary executive and why he thinks it’s so important. Now it’s important to take a step back and say, well, why are we talking about The Federalist Papers? Those were written at one point. Things have changed a lot. You’re right, they have. And if you’re interested in learning more about how the executive branch and how

1:23 the President and the role of the President has changed over time, check out some of the scholar talks that my colleague Tony Williams has done. There he goes into different historical examples and looking at specific executives, how it is that they’ve executed and worked through the powers that they have delegated them to the Constitution. And it’s really interesting. But for today, it’s important for us to understand the original plan so that we

1:43 understand what the intention was for building out that office and how that has framed up debates throughout American history. So let’s dive into the paper itself. So again and if you watch a few of these videos, they should be pretty familiar to it at this point. But we’re talking about The Federalist Papers. So these are the essays that were written by three men James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay advocating on behalf of the new Constitution that had

2:07 been sent out to the states in September of 1787. That Constitution was replacing the Army Confederation, and a few of Hamilton’s comments are going to be directed at that old document. In essence, one of the things they wanted to improve on was having an executive that would be more able to execute on the laws that were passed by the legislature. So thinking about our three branches, we have the legislature.

2:29 They’re creating the laws. The judiciary is reviewing and deciding on matters about those laws. But it’s the executive that’s enforcing them, bringing them to action. That’s where Hamilton is going to focus all of his attention. And again writing under Publius his pseudonym that’s what we’re going to focus on today. So again, if you’ve seen a few of my videos, you’ll know we did a summary of the Federalist Papers.

2:50 I definitely recommend you check out that video if you’re curious about what are we talking about here but just so that we can focus in again, just like we talked about in our last video about Federalist 62, here, we’re talking again about this section here. The conformity of the proposed Constitution of the true principles of Republican government. We’re talking about an executive. It’s not exactly what we think about when

3:12 we think of Democratic or Republican government. Typically we’re thinking about debates and we’re thinking about multiple people and people having a voice in their decisions. And executive kind of runs counter to that, which is why there is a lot of different ways that people wanted to have that executive power but without delegating it to a single individual because they were concerned that that single individual may have too much power and may run over the legislative branch.

3:34 With the past few publishers is going to talk about why it’s so important that we have an executive that can act when action is called for to enforce that legislation or to stand up for the United States. So let’s dive in. So Publius starts out this paper by diving right in and he says there’s an idea which is not without its advocates that a vigorous executive is inconsistent with the genius of Republican government.

3:57 Again, we’re talking about how the executive branch is consistent with that republican government. And here he’s talking about a vigorous executive. We’re going to come back to that idea of vigorousness. In another word, he uses a lot of energy here in a few minutes. So he says the enlightened well wishes to this species of government must at least hope that this supposition is destitute of foundation since they can never admit it’s truth without at the same

4:21 time admitting the combination of their own principles. Energy. And again, this works really important. Energy in the executive is the leading character in the definition of good government. It is essential to the protection of the community against foreign attacks. It is not less essential to the steady administration of the laws, to the protection of property against those regular and high handed combinations which sometimes interrupt the ordinary

4:44 course of justice, the security of liberty against the enterprises and assaults of the ambition of faction and of anarchy. So what’s he saying? He’s saying, look, we want to have protection of liberty. That’s the number one thing we want to do in a republican government in order to do that, at times we need somebody who can act vigorously. In other words, energetically. In other words,

5:05 in a way that is consistent with making a quick decision that is sort of direct. It’s clear we know what’s happening, someone’s in charge. In other words, that’s what the role of the Executive is, according to Publius’ argument. So immediately in the next paragraph, and again, I should mention these are just excerpts from this paper. I definitely recommend you go and read the whole paper, which you can find.

5:26 I’ve got the citation down here at the bottom for a great book you can find, but there’s lots of different-Avalon has another version of it. Take a look at the whole paper here. We’re just looking at the excerpts, but here he immediately goes on and says there could be no need, however, to multiply arguments or examples of this set. A feeble executive implies a feeble execution of government.

5:46 A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution. And a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be in practice, bad government. What’s he saying? Essentially, look, if you don’t have government that can take charge, make decisions and make things happen, you have a weak government that not only is that ineffective, it’s actually worse than ineffective,

6:07 because that weakness can actually allow for other corrupting influences that come into society and to exert power in a way that is unhelpful and may be destructive to the liberties that we’re trying to protect. Then he has a very Publius line, and really, I would say a very Hamiltonian line, speaking of Alexander Hamilton. But he says, taking it for granted,

6:28 therefore, that all benefits will agree on the necessity of the energetic executive. In other words, look, everyone’s going to agree. And since we know they’re going to agree, I’m going to kind of dive in here on a few other things. He says, it only remain to inquire what are the ingredients which constitute this energy and how far can they be combined with those which constitute the Safety and Republican Senate? And how far does this combination

6:49 characterize the plan which has been reported by the convention? In other words, look, we all agree energy and the executive is critically important. Since we all agree, I’m going to show why this new plan has that energetic executive that we need, why it’s safe for Republican government. Not only is why it’s safe for Republican government to have this kind of executive, but that it is better for Republican government to have this kind of executive.

7:13 And finally, how that all aligns within the plan that’s been outlined. So that Publius is going to define this idea of energy, right? So he’s talked about it a lot, but really, what does he mean? He says, what constitutes energy in the Executive? Well, first, it’s unity. Second, it’s duration, clearly adquet precision for support, and fourthly, competent powers.

7:35 Right. So what are we talking about? Well, it’s got to be unitary. That’s what we’re going to talk about in this paper specifically. But it also has to do with the duration, how long this individual is in office. It has to do with an adequate provision so what kinds of powers the executive is given and finally how those powers are constituted, how this actually works out in the executive. So then he goes on to say

7:55 that the circumstances which constitute safety in the Republican sense are first, a due dependence on the people and second, a due responsibility. So again, we have this idea that Publius building this government up to be something that’s new and dynamic? Because again, the concerns that people have with Republican government is that it’s been tried before. It often gets swept up by passion or by infighting and sort of crumbles.

8:19 For a long time there’s been these advocates on behalf of really good singular executive power see that as monarchical power. So you have somebody like Thomas Hobbes who’s arguing on behalf of sort of a paternalistic government that has a single executive and that is really the way that we are able to keep our liberty secure as having a strong executive government.

8:42 This constitution is saying the opposite thing. Self-government governed by individuals is really important. And how do we go about achieving that? Where we have a legislature that’s built out that legislates on our behalf that is receptive to the people’s will it takes sort of the passions of the people distills it down to reason. We talked a little bit about that in our video on Federalist 62 if you want to go back and take a look.

9:03 But here we’re talking about something different. If you were introducing that idea of the executive, that’s kind of scary. So what Publius is doing here is outlining why this is good. The way he’s saying that is it’s a due dependence on the people. So the executive needs to be responsive to the world of people and secondly, due responsibility. It has clear authority over which it’s supposed to execute on and it’s able to do so because it’s given the power that it needs in order to accomplish that.

9:27 All right, so what’s the most important thing, though? Again, he comes back to this idea that they have great propriety considered energy as the most necessary qualification. All right, so what is this idea of energy? Once again, we’ve talked about how this new power is going to institute that energy. But what is he really talking about? Why is he using this word energy?

9:50 Well, really what he’s talking about energy is just the ability to get things done. It’s this idea that you have power, but that power is singular and decisive. So one person’s making decisions, it’s stable, so you know who the person is there for a long enough time. It’s adequate to whatever is going to be happening and competent. So it’s given power in the right areas, but it’s able to get things done.

10:12 The opposite, as he said earlier, is sort of weakness, uncertainty, a lack of clarity. And you saw some of that under the Articles of Confederation, where the national government wasn’t really able to weigh into disputes between states, and a few other instances where it was causing some sort of clashes and there were factions already arising or threatening to rip the union apart if you wanted.

10:34 Really have a good example of energy. Think about Washington, especially Washington as a general. You have a singular general who’s in charge of the army, who’s making decisions. That’s sort of the vision that we’re talking about here. And not only that, but Washington was the man that many people would have had in mind as of having these debates about what the executive is going to be. Washington had already proven himself not only as an apt general during the war,

10:56 but also as a person who has the ideals of Republican government at his heart. That’s the thing. And he demonstrated that by surrendering his commission. We have a great essay on that, if you want to check it out on our website. But the whole point is that Washington had shown that. And so that shows that someone with energy, with authority, could actually step back and not oppress the rights of people.

11:18 So that’s energy. So back to Publius. He argues that it is in favor of a single executive. So one person, that’s unity, unitary executive, one person is going to get this executive. It is that, he says, that is best adapted to deliberation and wisdom and best calculated to conciliate the confidence of the people, to be secure in their privileges and interests.

11:40 That unitary is conducive to the energy, will not be disputed. Again, very Publius here, very Hamiltonian. He says, look, no one’s going to disagree. It has decision, activity, secrecy, dispatch, they’re all characteristics of a single person being in charge. That’s what we want. We need that kind of person who’s going to have a vision, who’s going to execute on it, and who’s going to just proceed.

12:00 And he says that it diminishes in proportion with having a number of people. So the more people you have, the more challenging this is to actually do. So. If a unitary executive is so great, how can it be destroyed, right? So here you can see again, Publius wants to get this constitution passed. So it’s clear to say he has a bias in favor of the Constitution.

12:20 For him that’s okay, because for us that’s okay too, because what we’re trying to evaluate is what is his plan? What does this thing look like and why is he arguing this way? So here he’s doing something interesting, saying, look, we all agree that energy is important. We all agree that the energy is created by having a unitary executive. And since we all agree that those two are the most important things for an executive, what are the threats to that?

12:41 How can that come apart? Well, here he says, it can be destroyed in two ways, either by vesting power in two or more magistrates of equal dignity and authority, or by vesting it in one man subject in a whole part to the cooperation of others. Right? So here he’s talking about two different styles of government. One, he’s talking about sort of a consulate. Maybe you could think about if you’re familiar with the French Revolution,

13:04 there was one point where they had a consul which was three people. One was Napoleon Bonaparte, who eventually became the only consul. So you kind of see where maybe that kind of government can go, or maybe that kind of thing, which is modeled sort of off of a Roman style government, might head. The other is having a single executive, but being beholden to a council.

13:26 So this you might think about from the colonies, if you remember, there would be a governor, but that governor was beholden to sort of a council they had to go in and talk with. Both of those are in here destroying unity. And so he’s going to go on to detail how it is that that unity is being destroyed. And he goes through and he lists all kinds of examples.

13:48 He mentions the Roman example that I had just used. He wouldn’t have mentioned the French Revolution because that’s yet to happen. I only mentioned it as it’s a way of looking at what that style government might look like. But he goes through and details out a bunch of these historical examples and now he comes back. He says, but quitting the dim light of historical research, which I just find to be a hilarious phrase.

14:08 He says, we’ll go on and we shall discover much greater cost to reject and approve the idea of a plurality in the executive. Again, here he’s really writing to people who are concerned about this unitary executive. And so in order to do that, he points to historical examples. Yes, but now he’s going to point specifically to human nature.

14:29 And he says whenever two or more persons are engaged in enterprise or pursuit, there’s always the danger of a difference of opinion. Look, when you’ve got two people together, they’re going to disagree. It’s natural. Well, why is that a problem in the executive? He said that’s a problem because it erodes the public trust. And he says that if you can’t trust the decision that’s going to be made, it’s going to cause problems.

14:51 It’s going to cause problems because there is going to be disagreements. Those disagreements are going to lead to different people who are on different sides of those agreements. That’s going to create factions, and those factions are both going to divide people and also frustrate the ability of actually getting done what you want to get done. You can imagine a situation in your own community where you want to build a park and the governor decides, or the mayor decides, I’m going to build this park.

15:14 Well, if there’s two people, one, well, maybe I want to build a park here and maybe I want to build a park on this other corner. And now you have two groups of people who are going to disagree. No, I want it on corner A and no, I want it on corner B. That’s dividing it and at the end of the day, you’re going to spend so much time debating over which corner to put the park on that the park never gets built right. So that’s the kind of thing he’s talking about.

15:34 It’s frustrating to actually getting done what you want to get done within the community or in this case, within the entire nation. But now in saying that, be careful because what he’s talking about is saying like unitary action, great, important, great. But you can also see a scenario in which, look, maybe that debate is healthy. Maybe we shouldn’t have a park on either corner A or corner B, because we need to do something else.

15:56 That’s sort of the Republican Democratic sense. While we’re having these debates, we’re voting. And so now he’s got to be careful to not say that that’s bad, but to say that it’s bad simply in the Executive. So he says, look upon the principles of free government inconveniences from the source just mentioned, meaning debate and disagreement must necessarily be submitted to the formation of the legislature, but is unnecessary and unwise to introduce

16:20 them into the Constitution of the Executive. So he’s saying, look, I understand that disagreement happens and that disagreement is good. And not only is it good, but it’s actually helpful. It says in the legislature, promptitude of decision is often at the evil than a benefit. We want disagreement, we want it to be slow, difference of opinion and jarring of parties in that department if the government, though they may sometimes

16:42 obstruct solitary plans, yet often promote deliberation and circumstances. Meaning, look, that debate is incredibly important. It’s important for us to have these discussions. It’s important for us to think through and talk about this stuff. But in the Executive it’s not good. They serve to embarrass and weaken the execution of the plan or measure

17:05 to which they relate from the step of the final conclusion to it. So what he’s saying here is, look, the legislature should be debating, discussing and having these conversations, but by the time that gets to the Executive, the decision has been made. The executive is only executing on the laws that have been passed by the legislature. In theory, again, we’re thinking about the idealized constitution. And because of that they need to be able to execute.

17:26 They need to not be bogged down by having this long, drawn out, deliberation discussion. They need to be able to make decisions and to move forward. That’s the most important thing that executives can do. Again, that’s energy, the best way to obtain that energy is unity, unitary executive. So here he uses in the conduct of war in which energy executive is the bulwark or the greatest protection

17:50 of national security, everything would be apprehended from its plurality. In other words, if we’re at war, you want somebody making a decision, having a long debate about it puts you at a disadvantage. It’s a negative thing. So again, legislature, great. Go, debate, discuss, but executive, we need action, we need to move, we need to make decisions. Now, finally, not only do we need to act

18:12 clearly and quickly, but we also need to hold people responsible. So Publius’ next point here is to say, look, when you have multiple people, you’re not able to find out who is responsible. They can hide behind it, that there’s a decision that’s made, but nobody wants to fess up to it. And so then what happens here? He says that it tends to conceal the faults and destroy responsibility.

18:32 If there’s not one person in charge to blame, how can you actually blame the one person who’s responsible for a poor decision? He says that’s also bad because it doesn’t allow people then to identify and say, look, this person has lost the public trust. It needs to be gotten out of office. And that, he says, is the other problem with this whole plural executive or multiple executives

18:54 and with the units or executive, if somebody makes a bad decision, you know exactly who it is, then the people can vote them out. And that is important, again, for the preservation of Republican government. All right, so quick summary. There was a lot of information. Go back, check out the video, step through it as well as you want to. There’s a lot of great bits. And again, if you want to read the whole paper, it’s definitely worth it. But for the purposes of understanding Publius’ argument, why do we need a unitary executive?

19:17 Well, the executive needs to execute. That’s its whole role. In order to execute, it needs energy. So how do you provide that energy? Unitary action, a single individual. And then he also went through and talked about, well, why is that? Why is this one person going to be better at doing that than multiple people? Well, it’s easier to make a single decision. It’s not going to defied people, and you can hold people accountable.

19:40 And for all those reasons, that’s why Publius says that a single executive is the way to go and we need to have this unitary executive even though there were people in the country that were saying, no, no, a single executive power thing. King George III is going to become another monarch. They’re going to crush our liberties. We’ve already seen that happen. We don’t want to have another single person in the office. Publius is saying no.

20:01 You do, because that’s going to create efficient and effective government that’s being executed based on the laws that you as the people have worked to consent to and to pass the executives here to execute and to drive the nation forward. All right, so I know I went through that really fast. If, again, you want to see sort of what the entire design of The Federalist Papers was, we have a video on that.

20:21 We also have a video on a few different papers, and we’re going to keep looking at both the Federalist Papers and the Anti Federalist Papers moving forward. So make sure to like and subscribe so you can find out when we have new videos coming up. You can also again check out my colleague Tony Williams videos that look at different presidencies and different ways of looking at the executive branch over time. If you want to know how this has evolved, but how do you think it has evolved?

20:42 How do you think it’s changed? Do you think that we’ve followed Publius’ plan or that Publius’ plan has come about in the way that he anticipated it? Or have things gone in a different direction? Are there challenges? It’s one of those interesting questions that we get to think about and explore every time we look at history and the history of our government. So thank you for joining. I look forward to seeing you next time.