At Jefferson's urging, Madison took up his pen in the attempt to counter what he and Jefferson considered the very dangerous interpretation of presidential power laid out by Hamilton in hisPacificusessays.It is important to note a few things before we get into the crux of Madison's arguments for today.First, for Madison this question was overwhelmingly one of principle and had little to do with the actual policy decision in question.This was not true for Hamilton (as we saw in the last twoPacificusessays we read for today), nor was it true for Jefferson, who was a staunch defender of France and the French Revolution.But Madison was first and foremost concerned with preventing Hamilton's model of executive prerogative and power from becoming established and accepted as gospel.This of course concerned Hamilton and Jefferson as well, but for Madison it was his primary motivation.Second, this exchange also allows us to see a subtle but important difference between these three men, men who arguably have had a larger impact on American government under the Constitution than any others (although we likely have to include Lincoln and possibly John Marshall on this list as well).Although we have Hamilton and Madison squaring off here, far bigger differences existed between Hamilton and Jefferson.Hamilton dreamed of a United States that was a global economic and military power.He envisioned an American empire, led by a powerful president.For Hamilton, the federal government had to be dominant. Jefferson, on the other hand, saw the US ideally as an agricultural nation, largely isolated from the rest of world.Jefferson's ideal America was a rural America with a state-centered system, and it would be led by virtuous citizens with close ties to the land, their families, and their local communities.In many ways Madison was somewhere in between these two extremes, and we can see this in hisHelvidiusessays.Madison had no problem with the US as a powerful nation, and saw the value in pursuing economic growth and eventually military might.He also supported a strong central government, although not as strong Hamilton preferred.Madison's real difference from Hamilton was in where the power in the central government should reside.While Hamilton clearly believed that the bulk of the power was most properly housed in the executive branch, Madison was just as clear in his belief that the bulk of the power should be contained in the hands of the Congress.More than anything else, this difference is at the heart of the exchanges between Hamilton and Madison in theirPacificusandHelvidiusessays.

II.Madison and the Constitution

Madison's first counter to Hamilton's views was simple and direct: In Madison's view, Hamilton's claims of broad presidential power clearly violated the executive/legislative arrangement outlined in the Constitution.When it came to executive power (although not legislative power), Madison was a strict constructionist of the Constitution.In hisHelvidiusessays, Madison essentially said that the Constitution meant what it said when it came to matters of executive power.The first sentence of Article II was not a broad grant of general power; it simply established the president as the head of the executive branch.Madison pointed out that the power to declare war was completely removed from the hands of the president and given entirely and solely to Congress.The president simply cannot interfere in the power of Congress to declare war in any fashion whatsoever.The Constitution contained similar clarity when it came to the treaty making power.Here, Madison argued, the president certainly had a role, but it was one that was subordinate to that of the Senate.The president could negotiate as he saw fit, but none of that would matter unless it was approved by 2/3 of the Senate.It is useful to quote Madison at length here:

If we consult for a moment, the nature and operation of the two powers to declare war and make treaties, it will be impossible not to see that they can never fall within a proper definition of executive powers.The natural province of the executive magistrate is to execute laws, as that of the legislature is to make laws.All his acts therefore, must presuppose the existence of laws to be executed.A treaty is not an execution of laws: it does not presuppose the existence of laws.It is, on the contrary, to have itself the force of a law, and to be carried into execution, like all other laws, by the executive magistrate.To say then that the power of making treaties which are confessedly laws, belongs naturally to the department which is to execute laws, is to say, that the executive department naturally includes a legislative power.In theory, this is an absurdityin practice a tyranny (59).

III.Madison and Human Nature

Besides the clear constitutional concerns, Madison had an additional argument against Hamilton's claims of a broad executive powerhis dim view of human nature.We saw earlier this semester how Madison's belief that human beings are by their nature sinful creatures affected his crafting of the Constitution, and we see this view pop up again in hisHelvidiusessays.In essay No. 4 Madison argued vehemently that a strong executive such as the one outlined by Hamilton would ultimately result in a corrupt president who would destroy the liberties of the people.Madison was careful to note that he did not have any concerns that something like this would happen with Washington, but that someday a man of lesser quality and integrity would hold the office, and that power would be abused.As Madison put it on p. 88:

An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth.An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents.The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue, which would make it wise in a nation, to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate, created and circumstanced, as would be a President of the United States.

IV.Questions

• Who should dominate the making of American foreign policythe president or Congress?
• Whose argumentsHamilton's or Madison'sdo you find more compelling?Why?