Chapter 22 1. The President is a problem

After the "Great Compromise" of the Constitutional Convention, the Committee of Details was elected on July 24, consisting of Rutledge of South Carolina, Randolph of Virginia, Gorham of Massachusetts, Ayersworth of Connecticut, and Wilson of Pennsylvania, tasked It is to codify the agreed terms into a document for further discussion.This shows that after a compromise was reached on the seat issue, everyone breathed a sigh of relief, thinking that a draft constitution could finally be produced. But no one expected that they would have another meeting for another two months, because there were too many troubles in the constitutional assembly, and the problems that the founding leaders had to solve were too complicated.

However, in my opinion, the two issues that are the most controversial and have the most far-reaching impact are the distribution of seats and the establishment of administrators.If the former problem is difficult because they are neither the same country nor different countries (this is what Gerry of Massachusetts said); Limitation.In Madison's words on June 6, "the administrator must be controlled and defended."Guweno Morris also said on August 7 that we are really doing a strange thing. We want to establish a strong man to protect us, and at the same time tie his hands behind his back.

Here we have to give a little background on the problem. We know that before the Philadelphia Conference in 1787, there was no president in the United States, nor in the world.The president is an American invention. The English name is President, which is the same word as the director of the club, which means the supervisor (the speaker of the Senate is also called President, which means the host; the speaker of the House of Representatives is called Speaker, which means the spokesperson).Moreover, this president cannot "unify" everything in a "total" way.It is not the "emperor" of the United States, nor is it the "boss" of the government. It is just the head of the executive branch of the federal government's legislative, executive, and judicial departments. It is also responsible for dealing with other people (foreign countries).Using China as an example, she is the daughter-in-law, not the mother-in-law.If you use the composition of the company as an example, it is at most a general manager, not a chairman.Of course, this daughter-in-law, this general manager is quite decent.Because he is the person in charge of diplomacy who shows up, and the mother-in-law and the chairman don't show up.Because he is the one who is in charge of affairs and diplomacy in front of his face, and the mother-in-law and the chairman are not in the face.Therefore, when the Constitution-making representatives consider designing a mandate for the American people, that is, when they are figuring out how to hand over the keys on behalf of the "mother-in-law", they have to be wary of this "daughter-in-law". On June 4, Franklin said that the first to be put at the helm would be a good man.What will happen to the successor, only God knows.

Everyone can hear that Franklin's so-called "the first person to be placed at the helm" refers to Washington.This is also the secret promise in the hearts of many representatives.Washington is indeed reassuring.This is not only because of Washington's reliable character, but also because he has no biological children.But monarchy (including constitutional monarchy) was, after all, the mainstream of the world at that time.Who can guarantee that everyone (including the people and the administrator himself) will not regard the president as the emperor? On June 1, as soon as the meeting began to discuss the magistrate, Mr. Pinckney, representative of South Carolina, said that if the magistrate became "elected monarchs," it would be the worst of all branches of the military.Mason also said on June 4 that an elected monarchy is a more dangerous monarchy.

This is something the American people don't like, and it's something that most constitutional representatives don't approve of.Mason said he hoped to never see any attempt to restore the monarchy in this country again.Hatred of the oppression of the monarchy has led the people through a revolution that has just passed; shall we repeat the same mistakes?It was for this reason that he expressed his unconscionability in surrendering all the rights of the people to a single magistrate. There are also people who hold an extremely complex and contradictory attitude.Dickinson said on June 2 that a limited monarchy makes one of the best political forms in the world.No republican government will ever be equally blessed.But this kind of system is no longer within the scope of discussion of the meeting, because the spirit of the times and the current situation we face prohibit us from using society as an experiment.Even if someone wants to do it.Franklin also said on the same day that we do not want to have a king, but there is always a natural tendency in the human heart to require a king-like government.For men would rather keep one tyrant than five hundred tyrants.Moreover, kingship can sometimes bring a semblance of fairness and liberate people from the domination of the aristocracy, so he expresses his fear that this federal government of theirs will one day end up as a monarchy.He said that such a catastrophe might be postponed as long as possible, but if our institutions are not well designed, a king will come quickly to us (Rep. Williamson of North Carolina also said on July 24 that we Sooner or later there will always be a king, but that should be delayed as long as possible).

No wonder delegates are wary of the issue.At first they didn't even call the president the President of the United States, they called him the National Executive.The number of people is also uncertain, some advocate one person, and some advocate multiple people.Randolph firmly opposed the centralization of executive power in one person.He made two speeches on June 1 and 2, arguing that having one person as the national administrator is the embryo of the monarchy.He advocated the selection of three people from different parts of the country to form the executive branch.Wilson disagreed with Randolph.He believes that the concentration of executive power in one person is not only not the embryo of a monarchy, but the best guarantee against guarantees. On June 4, Wilson added that a single magistrate does not establish a king.Our thirteen states disagree on many points, but on one point they agree, and that is that each state has only one magistrate.If there were three administrators, as Mr. Randolph advocates, it would be foreseeable that nothing would be accomplished, but a loss of control. There will be constant hostility and resentment among the 3 administrators and carry these sentiments across the country.

Butler and Gerry also disapproved of a three-man administrator.They all mentioned the war, saying that this arrangement would make the magistrate a general with three heads.Voting results: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia were in favor, New York, Delaware, and Maryland were against, and New Jersey was absent. The meeting passed a resolution: the administrator should be one person.During the voting process, the Virginia delegation split.Washington, Madison, and McClung were in favor, Randolph, and Blair were against.Weiss was in favor, but went home; Mason was against, but was not at the meeting.

If there are still different opinions on whether the administrator should be held by one person or more than one person, then there are even more opinions on how the administrator came into being.This issue has been debated almost from the beginning of the meeting to the end of the meeting, and it has become a huge problem for the Constitutional Convention. On July 26 (at this time, it had been 10 days since a compromise was reached on the seat issue), Mason once summarized the election methods that had been proposed, and there were as many as 8 kinds.In fact, according to my statistics, there are at least 10 types: 1. National parliamentary elections.This was the method proposed by the Virginia Plan, and Sherman agreed, on the grounds that if there is tyranny in the world, it must be because the executive is independent of the legislature.2. Election by the people.This was put forward by Wilson on June 1, on the grounds that such an executive branch would be independent of both the legislative branch and the states.3. Separate elections for the second house of the National Assembly (Senate).This is what Rutledge proposed on June 1.Fourth, the election of "electors" elected by the people, which was proposed by Wilson on June 2, and is the second set of plans he proposed.5. Elected by the state assemblies, or nominated by the state assemblies, and then elected by electors.This was brought up by Gerry on June 2.6. Election of state administrators.This is another plan that Gerry proposed twice on June 9 and July 19: the first house is elected by the people of each state, the second house is elected by the state assemblies, and the national administrator is elected by the state administrators. In fact, the national administrator is regarded as the chairman of the joint conference of state administrators.7. Election by "electors" elected by the state assemblies.At this time, Luther Martin proposed on July 17, and the difference from the Wilson plan lies in the selection of electors.Wilson advocated election by the people, Luther Martin advocated election by the state assemblies.8. Elected by the people, but each person is required to vote for three candidates, at least two of whom are from other states.This was brought up by Williamson on July 25.9. Each state recommends a candidate, who is then elected by the National Assembly or electors elected by the people.This was brought up by Dickinson on July 25.9. Each state recommends a candidate, who is then elected by the National Assembly or electors elected by the people.This was brought up by Dickinson on July 25.10. Election of "electors" drawn by the National Assembly.This was proposed by Wilson on July 24, and it was also the third proposal he proposed.In fact, there are two options that are not included.One was proposed by Ellsworth on July 25; the first appointment of the magistrate was to be elected by the national assembly, and the re-election by the electors elected by the state assemblies.The other was proposed by Mr. Pinckney on the same day: that the administrators be elected by the National Assembly, but that no one should hold office for more than six years in any twelve year period.

The question is not how many options there are, but the reasons for and against them.Here are just a few examples.For example, the reason why Gerry opposed the election of the magistrate by the National Assembly was that it would lead to collusion, bargaining and collusion between the magistrate and the members.The senators promised to vote someone for the magistrate, and the magistrate promised them various advantages.Guweno Morris also believed that if the magistrate was allowed to be elected by parliament, it would be dominated by shadowy men, politicians who planned in the back room, various factions and groups.Moreover, if the executive is elected by the national assembly, he cannot be independent of the legislative branch, and usurpation and tyranny from the assembly will follow.Gouveno Morris added that one of the great objects of the magistrate was to control the assembly, and to protect the interests of the people from an assembly of great men and upstarts.Wilson also held this view.He thought that if the magistrate were elected by the national assembly, he would then be caught between the intrigues of the members and the general rights of the people.So he proposed a way: draw lots.No more than 15 electors will be drawn by the National Assembly, and then a separate meeting will be held for an immediate election. The meeting is not allowed to adjourn before the election, lest they secretly play tricks!

What is this indicating?It shows that they are worried about those who will hold power in the future.I am not at ease with the administrator, but also with the congressmen, and I am even more worried.In their view, parliament is the most trustworthy and the most careful.Because parliament, as a legislative branch, is more terrifying than anyone else once it abuses.Of course, whether it is a member of parliament or the president, the reason why we must be careful and guard against it is because they are officials and they have the power.Therefore, the controversies and proposals of the Constituent Assembly, all of which can be summed up in one sentence: defending against officials is like guarding against thieves.