Executive+Power+Articles

To the People Sean Carter aka J Kim

Friends and fellow citizens

Any nation must ultimately be under the power and representation of one individual. The British are ruled by a king who is BORN into such a position, not ELECTED, like the Presidents our country would be governed under. Listen and stick to the Federalist side, as this side proposes not only great ideas, but ones that actually make sense and would work.

Federalist No. 69 states the power of the President, which I'm sure many of you are familiar with. I will summarize it for those who are not. A President of the United States will firstly be ELECTED, not born into the position. Also, a President will be the commander in chief of the armed forces but not be able to declare war without the consent of Congress. A President many also appoint and receive ambassadors (foreign) for diplomatic reasons. Also, a President, if found guilty of a crime, will be impeached, removed from office, and be prosecuted like any criminal.

I find these quite fair and agreeable. The Anti-Federalists cannot propose a better idea than this. So friends and fellow citizens of the United States of America, I urge you to support the Federalists.

Sean Carter

Response from Roger Davenport to Sean Carter

Before I begin my argument, let me ask you a question fellow Americans. Do we want to be the same as the British? Do we want absolute monarchy and tyranny? I don’t think so! Sean Carter, I really hope you think twice about what you have just said. Your arguments reinforce the idea of an absolute monarch. President maybe elected by the people, but the president is the commander in chief of the military. This means that the president has full control of the military. Also, does the president represent you? According to Cato: “that the president cannot represent you because he is not of your own immediate choice, that if you adopt this government, you will incline to an arbitrary and odious aristocracy or monarchy the that the president possessed of the power, given him by this frame of government differs but very immaterially from the establishment of monarchy in Great Britain.” (Letter 5). Congress can be metaphoric to the British parliament. Military control and British Parliament. Hmm… Doesn’t that remind of you someone? It reminds me of King George III, a leader who had full control of the military. Although British Parliament had power to vote for declaration of war, a king can easily take over parliament. Or in this case, Congress might vote in favor of the president. Also, Congress is not a reliable enough to make decisions. “That Congress have the improper power of making or altering the regulations prescribed by the different legislatures, respecting the time, place, and manner of holding elections for representatives, and the time and manner of choosing senators” (Cato’s Letter 5). Your arguments have a lot of loop holes it is not perfect. I hope the people of the United States make a wise decision and support my argument from the anti-federalist side.

Roger Davenport

Rick Astley

Having heard the Federalists' breakdown of the executive power, I now cannot care less whether the president would be born or elected. Perhaps we havent learned from Britain's occupation of the colonies. How different is this from King George's days of reign. The Federalists fail provide thorough and explicit explanations, but rather with vague ones that would eventually discard our inviolable rights. The will of the ones in power would bring the people to misery. The articles fall short of providing a safe democracy. It is never good when the president governs a country along with senates that rely on flattery. The mode in which they are appointed and their duration also scare me. It's obvious by now that ambition, flattery, and luxury get the better of us all. With the Federalists, we are on the road to self-destruction.

To those with reason

It is a simple mistake to see a president as the same as a monarch. He is not born into his position and given power solely due to the fact that he was born, but he is elected into power instead. This means that someone who actually is deserving of the title can lead, and not just a corrupt, undeserving ruler just flaunting his title. A president is also required in order to have a smoothly functioning government in which everything works without hitches. The president would have jobs such as appointing officials that are not appointed by the constitution. Instead of being frightened by a past of bad examples, we just look forward and try to correct the mistakes of the past. Having a president will aid a strong and stable government, and he will not be corrupt due to the process of election.

Johnny Bravo

"The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State." (Federalist Paper Article #10)

Dear fellow Americans,

A nation without any form of a leadership is a folly; it cannot be a nation. In a republican form of a government, people's voices are not ignored. We Federalists, with strong zeal for republican government, believe that certain rights must be given to the executive and that the president must not be a figurehead, for how may we call ourselves nations when the states are not bound together under certain power? Our fellow anti-federalists have failed to notice that although they relate the president and the king, a president is elected by the people and his power is limited. It is absurd to say that a nation with certain executive government is a nation under tyrannical government, for what can a nation do without a political faction that can make one decision as a nation? I wholeheartedly agree with the tenth article of the Federalist paper. "The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States." An executive power is necessary for our new nation to stand strong.

Stephens James (SJ)