Is the U.S. President Too Powerful? Federalist and Anti-Federalist Perspectives

Federalist and Anti-Federalist perspectives at first tend to appear to be polar opposites in nature. The Federalists supported and sought to ratify the Constitution of the United States of America. Whereas the Anti-Federalists were hesitant to do so, and feared that the powers allotted in the Constitution would result in the newly birthed United States descending into a monarchy. The very same form of government that had proved dissatisfactory to the colonists in the first place. Therefore it may appear to be a moot point when deciding whether both viewpoints would be in harmony or opposition in regards to the power held by the modern presidency. The Anti-Federalists believed that power should rest with the states. However the Federalists wanted a strong central government headed by one official. This was because the Articles of Confederation (which gave the majority of power to the states) had failed miserably. However, while the Federalists and Anti-Federalists held opposite viewpoints, they had the same goal in mind: To create a free and balanced society, “It is here taken for granted, that all agree in this, that whatever government we adopt, it ought to be a free one,” (Brutus, 25). However, due to the initial ambiguous measure the framers of the Constitution took with regards to the executive branch, there have historically been events of a United States President overstepping his boundaries and violating the merits of both U.S. and Constitutional doctrine. Therefore both the Federalists as well as the Anti-Federalists would agree that in light of decisions made during George W. Bush’s consecutive terms that the modern presidency must be restricted. The concept that presidential powers should be limited extends back to when the Constitution was in its primary phase of drafting. Not all Federalists were in favor of limiting ruling powers. Early Federalist Alexander Hamilton was of the opinion that having a single monarch and incorporating positive aspects of European monarchy into government would benefit the country. However this opinion was not shared by most government-centered Federalists, “…his [Hamilton’s] vision seemed too monarchical for most framers to accept, having just fought a war to throw off the yoke of King George….Hamilton’s ideal executive would serve…for life” (Pfiffner, 2011). Some Federalists, including Benjamin Franklin and Edmund Randolph, held the viewpoint that creating a system that called for multiple leaders was the correct path to follow (Pfiffner, 2011). However most framers of the Constitution hoped for an intermediate solution, and sought to bring to power a “patriot king” of sorts, an idealistic monarch that they believed they would find in George Washington. The Anti-Federalists were opposed to a strong central government. They were even more opposed to a single person holding a position of great power due to the tyrannical rule of King George. Because of this the Anti-Federalists held a very anti-monarch viewpoint. One Anti-Federalist, Patrick Henry, believed that if the Constitution were to be ratified that nothing would stop an American President from taking over the country, “…during the Virginia ratification debates, Patrick Henry confidently predicted that if the Constitution were ratified, the President would use his constitutional powers to make himself king and "enslave[] America," (Kistler, 2011).
As previously stated, the fledgling U.S.A. was still reeling from the injustices implemented by King George. The Anti-Federalists under no circumstances were going to support a government that allowed a single individual omnipotent power. While Federalists disagreed and held the viewpoint that Washington was the embodiment of their patriotic king, even Washington knew that due to the complexity of succeeding in a republic government that attempting to play the part of a patriotic king would prove impossible (Pfiffner, 2011). Finally a compromise between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists was achieved and the framers created a system of checks and balances, a system that in theory would ensure no sect of government was given too much power,
“The president would exercise the ‘executive power,’ make appointments, negotiate treaties, conduct war, and recommend issues for congressional consideration. Congress, on the other hand, would possess all legislative powers, fund and set rules for the military, and declare war; Senate consent would be necessary for appointments and treaties,” (Pfiffner, 2011).
Despite the intense measures taken to ensure a fair system, the role and powers of the American President were ambiguously written. According to one source the complex focus on creating an equal compromise amongst the Federalists and Anti-Federalists directly resulted in the ambiguous nature of the presidency, “As a result of the complex calculations that went into creating the presidency, the authority of the executive was ambiguous,” (Pfiffner, 2011).
Over the course of the next 250 years two key measures would be taken to the Constitution that would further limit the President’s power and sought to address the executive branch’s ambiguous doctrine. These measures are the 22nd Amendment (which holds that, “… [no person will be] president more than twice,” (U.S. Const, amend, XXII) and the somewhat controversial War Powers Act of 1973 (An act that intends to check the president’s power in terms of his/her right to send the U.S. to war). Not surprisingly presidents to date have traditionally been against the War Powers Act as they find it unconstitutionally limits their powers, “U.S. Presidents have consistently taken the position that the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional infringement upon the power of the executive branch. As a result, the Resolution has been the subject of controversy since its enactment, and is a recurring issue due to the ongoing worldwide commitment of U.S. armed forces,” (The Law Library of Congress, 2012).
The 22nd Amendment and War Powers Act of 1973 are the two most well-known modern instances in which Presidential power has been legally limited. These provisions are due to both the continuously long presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and because of the misuse of military forces in the Korean (1950-1953) and Vietnam Conflicts (1959-1975), respectively. Even more pertinent the recent acts of President George W. Bush throughout the “War on Terror” further support the Federalists and Anti-Federalists determining the modern presidency to be in opposition of the compromise they forged when writing the Constitution.
Throughout Bush’s tumultuous and highly scrutinized presidency he made decisions that directly violated Constitutional protocol, as well as international conventions without seeking the approval of Congress. Not all of Bush’s decisions were made unjustly, as he was within his constitutionally allotted power in terms of making quick decisions to preserve national security and the safety of the nation’s citizens without consent from Congress. However, Bush took further actions beyond those which were granted to him that undoubtedly violated the regulations and creed of Federalist and Anti-Federalist American sentiment. These decisions were,
“…refus[ing] to acknowledge writs of habeas corpus from captives in the war on terror, refus[al] to comply with the legal requirement to seek warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before American communications could be intercepted [an act he kept secret until it was uncovered]…assert[ing] that he could authorize harsh interrogation techniques, tantamount to torture, despite the prohibitions in the U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions, claim[ing] in hundreds of signed statements, not to be bound by the provisions of the laws that he was signing when they, in his judgment, conflicted with his prerogatives as a president and head of the ‘unitary executive’ branch,” (Pfiffner, 2011).
These were decisions that in instances violated Constitutional law (namely the 8th Amendment), and are decisions for which he needed legal consensus and Congressional support, but did not get before implementing choices that he deemed necessary. The Anti-Federalists lack of support for Bush’s defiance of the Constitution is apparent due to their overall opinion that an American President should have very limited power. However, the Federalist perspective of Bush’s choices is in agreement to the Anti-Federalist perspective and can be found in the Federalist Papers.
According to the tenth Federalist Paper no person should be allowed to make choices based solely upon their own convictions,
“No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens?” (Publius, Federalist #10)
Despite their support of the President being allowed power, the Federalists did not intend for the leader of the United States to rule the country unchecked. They knew that any individual allowed to make choices unchecked would have no reason to not push their own agenda. Because Bush made choices that were illegal and against the grain of the Constitution the Federalists would not have agreed with the level of freedom he exercised. Both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists held very different viewpoints. While the Federalists were in favor of a centralized government with a ruling head, the Anti-Federalists instead believed that government should be a power of the individual states. These two forceful views had one thing in common though, that the United States be a free and balanced nation run in a just and fair way. Due to that common thought both of those faucets would not agree with the choices and extension of power that the modern President Bush has exercised. However, part of the unconstitutional liberties that have arisen are due to the executive powers being written ambiguously. Recent measures such as the 22nd Amendment and the War Powers Act of 1973 have sought to bring more balance to the powers experienced by the President of the United States, but disparities such as those showcased by Bush still exist. Therefore the Federalist and Anti-Federalists would have found Bush’s choices to be against the Constitution both in spirit and in legality, and would argue that the President’s powers should be further limited.

Works Cited
Brutus. (1787). The founding: Debating the constitution. In Unknown.

Kistler, C. (2011). The anti-federalists and presidential war powers. The Yale Law Journal, 121(2), 459-468. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/ detail?vid=6&sid=817097fa-065b-40a1-af7e-753b9a0626dd@sessionmgr198&hid= 115&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl

The Law Library of Congress, (2012). War power. Retrieved from website: http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php

Pfiffner, J. (2011). Federalist no. 70: Is the president too powerferl?. Public Administrative Review, 71, 112-117. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfv iewer?sid=a064658d-17b9-4edb-baee-6c6d10696a7a@sessionmgr112&vid=5&hid=115 Publius, “Federalist #10,” in The Federalist Papers, The New York Packet

U.S. Const. amend. XXII, Section 1

Cited: Brutus. (1787). The founding: Debating the constitution. In Unknown. Kistler, C 115&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl The Law Library of Congress, (2012). War power