Hamilton Vs Thomas Jefferson

Over two hundred years ago people were asking how powerful should the president be? Is he too powerful now? Today, in the twenty-first century, political scientist, constituent, and even politicians are asking the same questions. One of the most notable debates over this subject stems from a disagree between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton preferred a larger executive while Jefferson preferred a smaller one. When George Washington declared neutrality during a war between Britain and France, Jefferson did not believe that Washington had the constitutional power to do this. Hamilton decided to respond; he did so by publishing articles under the pseudonym, Pacificus. In his first letter, Pacificus makes the case that the President should be allowed the power to declare neutrality because there is nowhere is the constitution that otherwise states he cannot. Hamilton knows that in the Constitution it states that the Senate would have authority over treaties. Hamilton circumvents this argument by redefining what a neutrality declaration is: it is not, like some assume, a treaty. Rather it is a statement of a fact about the nation to other foreign entities. The executive is keeping the peace.
Madison says that the only powers that Washington can use are those explicitly stated in the Constitution regardless of whether Article II leaves out the phrase “herein granted”. Madison refutes Hamilton’s argument about what is a law by pointing out that announcing neutrality changes laws about war and domestic policy. He also explains that because a neutrality proclamation has to deal with war and how the country is involved the power falls under the Senate’s power to authorize treaties. If the Senate does not have a say in treaties, the president is far too similar to the British