| 
			
				|  |  
				| 
					
						| If History Interests You, then This Section of the 
						Site is For You |  |  
				| 
					
						| Back | Federalist 
						No. 67 The Executive Department
 From the New York Packet Tuesday, March 11, 1788.
 | Next |  |  
				| Author: Alexander Hamilton 
 To the People of the State of New York:
 
 THE constitution of the executive department of the proposed 
				government, claims next our attention.
 
 There is hardly any part of the system which could have been 
				attended with greater difficulty in the arrangement of it than 
				this; and there is, perhaps, none which has been inveighed 
				against with less candor or criticised with less judgment.
 
 Here the writers against the Constitution seem to have taken 
				pains to signalize their talent of misrepresentation. 
				Calculating upon the aversion of the people to monarchy, they 
				have endeavored to enlist all their jealousies and apprehensions 
				in opposition to the intended President of the United States; 
				not merely as the embryo, but as the full-grown progeny, of that 
				detested parent. To establish the pretended affinity, they have 
				not scrupled to draw resources even from the regions of fiction. 
				The authorities of a magistrate, in few instances greater, in 
				some instances less, than those of a governor of New York, have 
				been magnified into more than royal prerogatives. He has been 
				decorated with attributes superior in dignity and splendor to 
				those of a king of Great Britain. He has been shown to us with 
				the diadem sparkling on his brow and the imperial purple flowing 
				in his train. He has been seated on a throne surrounded with 
				minions and mistresses, giving audience to the envoys of foreign 
				potentates, in all the supercilious pomp of majesty. The images 
				of Asiatic despotism and voluptuousness have scarcely been 
				wanting to crown the exaggerated scene. We have been taught to 
				tremble at the terrific visages of murdering janizaries, and to 
				blush at the unveiled mysteries of a future seraglio.
 
 Attempts so extravagant as these to disfigure or, it might 
				rather be said, to metamorphose the object, render it necessary 
				to take an accurate view of its real nature and form: in order 
				as well to ascertain its true aspect and genuine appearance, as 
				to unmask the disingenuity and expose the fallacy of the 
				counterfeit resemblances which have been so insidiously, as well 
				as industriously, propagated.
 
 In the execution of this task, there is no man who would not 
				find it an arduous effort either to behold with moderation, or 
				to treat with seriousness, the devices, not less weak than 
				wicked, which have been contrived to pervert the public opinion 
				in relation to the subject. They so far exceed the usual though 
				unjustifiable licenses of party artifice, that even in a 
				disposition the most candid and tolerant, they must force the 
				sentiments which favor an indulgent construction of the conduct 
				of political adversaries to give place to a voluntary and 
				unreserved indignation. It is impossible not to bestow the 
				imputation of deliberate imposture and deception upon the gross 
				pretense of a similitude between a king of Great Britain and a 
				magistrate of the character marked out for that of the President 
				of the United States. It is still more impossible to withhold 
				that imputation from the rash and barefaced expedients which 
				have been employed to give success to the attempted imposition.
 
 In one instance, which I cite as a sample of the general spirit, 
				the temerity has proceeded so far as to ascribe to the President 
				of the United States a power which by the instrument reported is 
				EXPRESSLY allotted to the Executives of the individual States. I 
				mean the power of filling casual vacancies in the Senate.
 
 This bold experiment upon the discernment of his countrymen has 
				been hazarded by a writer who (whatever may be his real merit) 
				has had no inconsiderable share in the applauses of his party; 
				and who, upon this false and unfounded suggestion, has built a 
				series of observations equally false and unfounded. Let him now 
				be confronted with the evidence of the fact, and let him, if he 
				be able, justify or extenuate the shameful outrage he has 
				offered to the dictates of truth and to the rules of fair 
				dealing.
 
 The second clause of the second section of the second article 
				empowers the President of the United States ``to nominate, and 
				by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint 
				ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the 
				Supreme Court, and all other OFFICERS of United States whose 
				appointments are NOT in the Constitution OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR, 
				and WHICH SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY LAW.'' Immediately after this 
				clause follows another in these words: ``The President shall 
				have power to fill up ?? VACANCIES that may happen DURING THE 
				RECESS OF THE SENATE, by granting commissions which shall EXPIRE 
				AT THE END OF THEIR NEXT SESSION.'' It is from this last 
				provision that the pretended power of the President to fill 
				vacancies in the Senate has been deduced. A slight attention to 
				the connection of the clauses, and to the obvious meaning of the 
				terms, will satisfy us that the deduction is not even colorable.
 
 The first of these two clauses, it is clear, only provides a 
				mode for appointing such officers, ``whose appointments are NOT 
				OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR in the Constitution, and which SHALL BE 
				ESTABLISHED BY LAW''; of course it cannot extend to the 
				appointments of senators, whose appointments are OTHERWISE 
				PROVIDED FOR in the Constitution, and who are ESTABLISHED BY THE 
				CONSTITUTION, and will not require a future establishment by 
				law. This position will hardly be contested.
 
 The last of these two clauses, it is equally clear, cannot be 
				understood to comprehend the power of filling vacancies in the 
				Senate, for the following reasons: First. The relation in which 
				that clause stands to the other, which declares the general mode 
				of appointing officers of the United States, denotes it to be 
				nothing more than a supplement to the other, for the purpose of 
				establishing an auxiliary method of appointment, in cases to 
				which the general method was inadequate. The ordinary power of 
				appointment is confined to the President and Senate JOINTLY, and 
				can therefore only be exercised during the session of the 
				Senate; but as it would have been improper to oblige this body 
				to be continually in session for the appointment of officers and 
				as vacancies might happen IN THEIR RECESS, which it might be 
				necessary for the public service to fill without delay, the 
				succeeding clause is evidently intended to authorize the 
				President, SINGLY, to make temporary appointments ``during the 
				recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire 
				at the end of their next session.'' Secondly. If this clause is 
				to be considered as supplementary to the one which precedes, the 
				VACANCIES of which it speaks must be construed to relate to the 
				``officers'' described in the preceding one; and this, we have 
				seen, excludes from its description the members of the Senate. 
				Thirdly. The time within which the power is to operate, ``during 
				the recess of the Senate,'' and the duration of the 
				appointments, ``to the end of the next session'' of that body, 
				conspire to elucidate the sense of the provision, which, if it 
				had been intended to comprehend senators, would naturally have 
				referred the temporary power of filling vacancies to the recess 
				of the State legislatures, who are to make the permanent 
				appointments, and not to the recess of the national Senate, who 
				are to have no concern in those appointments; and would have 
				extended the duration in office of the temporary senators to the 
				next session of the legislature of the State, in whose 
				representation the vacancies had happened, instead of making it 
				to expire at the end of the ensuing session of the national 
				Senate. The circumstances of the body authorized to make the 
				permanent appointments would, of course, have governed the 
				modification of a power which related to the temporary 
				appointments; and as the national Senate is the body, whose 
				situation is alone contemplated in the clause upon which the 
				suggestion under examination has been founded, the vacancies to 
				which it alludes can only be deemed to respect those officers in 
				whose appointment that body has a concurrent agency with the 
				President. But lastly, the first and second clauses of the third 
				section of the first article, not only obviate all possibility 
				of doubt, but destroy the pretext of misconception. The former 
				provides, that ``the Senate of the United States shall be 
				composed of two Senators from each State, chosen BY THE 
				LEGISLATURE THEREOF for six years''; and the latter directs, 
				that, ``if vacancies in that body should happen by resignation 
				or otherwise, DURING THE RECESS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF ANY STATE, 
				the Executive THEREOF may make temporary appointments until the 
				NEXT MEETING OF THE LEGISLATURE, which shall then fill such 
				vacancies.'' Here is an express power given, in clear and 
				unambiguous terms, to the State Executives, to fill casual 
				vacancies in the Senate, by temporary appointments; which not 
				only invalidates the supposition, that the clause before 
				considered could have been intended to confer that power upon 
				the President of the United States, but proves that this 
				supposition, destitute as it is even of the merit of 
				plausibility, must have originated in an intention to deceive 
				the people, too palpable to be obscured by sophistry, too 
				atrocious to be palliated by hypocrisy.
 
 I have taken the pains to select this instance of 
				misrepresentation, and to place it in a clear and strong light, 
				as an unequivocal proof of the unwarrantable arts which are 
				practiced to prevent a fair and impartial judgment of the real 
				merits of the Constitution submitted to the consideration of the 
				people. Nor have I scrupled, in so flagrant a case, to allow 
				myself a severity of animadversion little congenial with the 
				general spirit of these papers. I hesitate not to submit it to 
				the decision of any candid and honest adversary of the proposed 
				government, whether language can furnish epithets of too much 
				asperity, for so shameless and so prostitute an attempt to 
				impose on the citizens of America.
 
 PUBLIUS.
 |  
				|  |  
				|  |  
				|  |  |