The Politics of the Presidency

Powerful Essays
The executive branch the Founders eventually adopted was not the only one considered at the Constitution Convention of 1786. For the most part, the delegates of the Convention agreed that some type of executive was needed for the government to function (Pika & Maltese, The Politics of the Presidency pg. 16). With this in mind it is no surprise that the three main plans presented at the Convention – the Virginia Plan, New Jersey Plan, and Hamilton’s Plan - all featured an executive of some sort. The Virginia Plan called for an executive that would be appointed by Congress and serve for an undetermined amount of years, but would be limited to just one term. The powers granted to this executive would be the executive powers granted to Congress under the Articles of Confederation and the ability to enforce national laws. On top of this, the executive would be a part of a council of revision that would review legislature passed by Congress, this council could reject the legislation with the opportunity for the legislature to repass the legislation. If this plan would have been adopted, the executive would be relatively weak, as the executive powers given to Congress under the Articles of Confederation were lacking and instead of being able to veto legislation by itself, but would rather have to depend on the rest of the council to agree. While this plan would be an improvement, the executive would be subordinate to the Legislative branch. The New Jersey Plan called for an, the executive would consist of multiple members chosen by Congress, this plural executive would serve for one term, and could be removed at any time by a simple majority of state governors (cite web). This plural executive would be able to appoint federal officers... ... middle of paper ... ...hich when passed in 1951 was the first amendment that actually decreased democratic ideals (Karol, Debating the Presidency pg. 50). This constitutional amendment removed the ability of the people to decide if they want to continue with the same president after 8 years. This goes against all democratic values and why? Because we fear that power will corrupt. However, this is a moot point. In studies over governor term lengths, there has been no proof that term limits affect corruption levels significantly (Karol, Debating the Presidency pg. 54). Repealing the 22nd Amendment would not only benefit democracy, but would hold presidents more accountable in their second terms and prevent a lame duck presidency (Karol, Debating the Presidency pg. 55). With these two steps, we will be much closer to realizing the envisioned democracy we preach to so many other countries.
Get Access