Essay On The Framers

When the Constitution of the United States was written, the Founding Fathers first established an executive and subsequently debated how much power should be vested in the President. In crafting the new American government, the Framers incorporated the beliefs of philosophers like Hobbes and Locke who wrote extensively on the subject of executive power. This resulted of in a specific set of enumerated presidential powers laid out in the Constitution, similar to the vision of John Locke. This delineation, along with other powers given to Congress and the judicial branch, was intended to both limit and check the president so that he would not become too powerful. However, as Clement Fatovic notes, the Framers also realized that there would

As a result, the Constitution was vague about certain implied powers that would allow presidents to wield a tremendous amount of power in extreme circumstances (Fatovic, 2009). This power, which would allow presidents to skirt or even contradict the letter of the law at certain times, is known as presidential prerogative. Based on the Lockean framework, however, it is understood that the president must justify this use of power to the other branches of government and to the people. Presidents like Abraham Lincoln serve as examples of how this power should be wielded and subsequently justified. Others, such as Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton used this prerogative power to advance their own interests, while failing to justify their actions in any capacity. This paper asserts that both Nixon and Clinton abused prerogative during their presidency. Using John Locke and Abraham Lincoln as definition and example respectively, this paper will evaluate the exercise of prerogative by Presidents

The requirement that the action be for the public good is perhaps most fundamental to Locke’s standards. James Pfiffner notes that much of Locke’s argument regarding government is that the executive exists to “protect the safety, life, liberty and property of the people” (2008, 23). Pfiffner explains that the correct use of prerogative would be similar to someone who bulldozes a house in order to stop a spreading fire (Pfiffner, 2008). This action would be in the time of an emergency, as the whole town could eventually catch fire. The action was definitely for the good of the public in that it stopped the fire from spreading any further. Finally, the action is temporary in the sense that it was only the house that caused the immediate danger that was destroyed and all others were left alone and temporarily in that you cannot just go around knocking down houses. This temporary aspect of prerogative was intended by Locke to preclude any buildup or codification of executive power. This means that as soon as the time of emergency is over, the legislature is supposed to revert to being the more powerful branch of government and the president must go back to obeying all of the laws. Furthermore, Schlesinger argues that in the aftermath of the emergency, the executive must defend and explain his actions and “he would be sustained and vindicated in that action only if his