How To Make The Executive Branch Strength Or Powerful

Determining the intentions of the founding fathers in their deliberations about whether to make the executive branch weak or strong is a murky task. Like nearly all questions about the true intentions of the founders, there was hardly any consensus, and the only consensus that was possible was a middle ground between a strong executive and a weak one. Gouverneur Morris explained the goal as “make him too weak: the Legislature will usurp his powers… make him too strong” and “[he] will usurp on the Legislature.” There was a delicate balance of creating an effective, independent Executive and having him be responsive to pressures from the people. To many, including Morris, the tyranny that needed to be protected against was not executive, but legislative. The Executive was supposed to act as a check on the legislature and be the “great
The first balance was the creation of the electoral college that was voted on directly by the will of the people but had the same representative power as Congress. Another balance that was struck was in the process of impeachment. In order to maintain an independent Executive, Pinckney was critical of the thought of impeachment as Congress could use it “as a rod over the Executive.” This concept was quickly scrapped and it was decided that the House should impeach a president while the Senate would hold the hearings. The President was still tied to Congress, but still maintained some independence through relaxed rules on what constituted an impeachable offense. Other balances of power that were included were the Senate’s power to “advise and consent” on executive appointments, and the Executive's veto power with Congressional overrule. All of these provisions were aimed at both giving the President independent authority while also having checks so as not to abuse his power. The President was not to be too strong, but also not to be so ineffectual as to ruin the