2/ This particular Federalist essay is about the appointing power of the President.
In it, Hamilton explains the logic behind submitting executive appointments to the Senate for approval.
3/ Left to his own devices and able to appoint officers without Senate approval, a President might appoint "unfit characters."
Senate confirmation would "be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President."
4/ What might these "unfit characters" for federal office look like?
They might be "in some way or other personally allied" to the President.
They might be people "possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."
5/ "[T]he obsequious instruments of [the President's] pleasure."
Boy, that Hamilton sure had a way with words when writing about politics, didn't he?
6/ The need for Senate approval would discourage the President from submitting such "unfit characters" for federal office because he would know that a "different and independent body" (i.e. the Senate) would be considering and discussing his choices.
7/ An independent Senate would discourage unfit appointments for federal office by facing the President with the very real and embarrassing possibility of rejection by the Senate, & the Senate's opinion "would have great weight in forming [the opinion] of the public.
8/ So...the actions of an INDEPENDENT Senate would shape public opinion on an unfit presidential appointment.
9/ Because of the power of that independent Senate shaping public opinion -- according to Hamilton -- a President would be "both ashamed and afraid" to propose unfit people for office, knowing that it might damage "his own reputation, and...his political existence."
10/ A fascinating line of reasoning, I'd say, with two critical cogs that make it run:
An independent Senate.
An executive who would feel ashamed to bring unfit appointees forward.
11/ The lack of the latter makes the former that much more important.
This has been a commercial advertisement for checks and balances.
Brought to you by the Committee of People Who Really Want Checks & Balances.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ I sometimes think we have a problem with words.
Words like:
Authoritarian
Oligarchy
Minority Rule
Socialism
Communism
Even democracy.
Some of them (socialism, communism) are buzz words used w/o meaning.
Some have dire meaning that often isn't grasped.
2/ It seems as though the meaning of "democracy" has slipped away.
That people don't grasp the vital way that democracy divides and distributes power, & gives a people the right to delegate that power & rule themselves.
1/ On today's episode of "History Matters (...and so does coffee!), I discussed how July 4th has ALWAYS been a day infused with celebration AND conflict, w/"declarations" about values met & unmet.
Even the original signing of the Declaration was infused with conflict & distrust.
2/ In his old age, ex-President John Adams was asked repeatedly about the "glorious" Founding, & always replied that it wasn't so blindly glorious.
They made mistakes.
They made poor choices.
The Founders weren't a united band of like-minded heroes.
3/ Regarding the signing of the Declaration of Independence--signed OTD, July 2, 1776--Adams told one starry-eyed correspondent that he had watched members of the 2nd Continental Congress, one-by-one, sign the Declaration, & could see that many were unhappy to be signing it.
I started “History Matters” early in the pandemic at a time of crisis for health—& democracy.
Given that we were all stuck at home, I thought I could offer some historical insight into what we were experiencing, as dire and surreal as it sometimes seemed—with history as a guide.
Over the last yr we’ve discussed everything from extreme rhetoric & impeachment, to democracy & violence, & fears of foreign influence
In the process, we’ve created an AMAZING community that meets weekly to discuss what democracy can & should be, & how history can help get there