The+Executive+-+Definition+and+Historical+Background

These are updated slides as of 2/21/12

The executive branch is, simplistically, the branch of government that implements the laws. Its function is delineated roughly by the Constitution (U.S. or state), and the laws passed by the legislative branch. It is also held in check by the legislative branch, which can oversee its activities and has the power of impeachment, and the judiciary, which can also oversee its activities and declare them unconstitutional if it deems it appropriate. This is a far more limited role for the executive branch than was the norm historically. What we call the executive can be considered to be the residue of what had been absolute monarchic rule. The presidency is the closest we get to a king: The powers granted the office bear a resemblance to those once held by the British monarch -- commander in chief, head of state, chief executive -- but these are highly restricted, or at least were initially. Over the course of American history, the powers of the executive, and specifically the president, have expanded. As we will see, these expansions have often been facilitated by Congressional legislation, which creates new job functions and agencies to implement them, and judicial decisions which have approved presidential efforts to expand war making and surveillance powers, among many others. The increasingly sophisticated media environment has also allowed presidents greater ability to communicate with the general population and use these communications to increase bargaining power with Congress.

In this section we review the historical developments that led to those restrictions. We follow the same ground covered when we discussed the evolution of legislative powers, but this time focus on the monarchy and the specific factors which led to the reduction of its powers. Again, we will look over the Declaration of Rights, the Declaration of Independence and the problems with the design of the Articles of Confederation. The establishment of a singular executive in Article II of the Constitution may have been the most controversial thing done in the Philadelphia Convention. Hopefully we will come to an appreciation of that controversy by the end of this section.

Timeline:

1100 - 1135: [|Henry I] rules Britain, establishes an administrative and financial system over the entire kingdom. 1154 - 1189: [|Henry II] institutionalizes [|common law], he also "sort of" orders the [|assassination of Thomas Becket]. 1189 - 1199: [|Richard the Lionheart] rules Britain. 1199 - 1216: [|King John] rules England. (see [|list of English Monarchs]) 1207: [|Stephen Langton] becomes Archbishop of Canterbury. 1534: [|The First Act of Supremacy] passed. 1534: The King of England becomes [|Supreme Governor of the Church of England]. 1566 - 1625: [|King James I] rules England. ([|Read his Works here]. On the [|Divine Rights of Kings]) 1603 - 1689: [|Stuart Monarchs] rule Britain. 1606: [|James I] charters the Virginia Company. 1607: [|Edward Maria Wingfield] becomes first colonial governor. [|Here is a list of the rest]. 1649: Charles the First executed 1653 - 1658: [|Oliver Cromwell]is [|Lord Protector] of Britain. 1689: [|William and Mary] sign the [|English Bill of Rights] and become monarchs of Britain. 1760 - 1820: [|King George] rules the United Kingdom. (also see the grievances below) 1775 - 1783: [|George Washington] is commander of the Revolutionary Army 1781 - 1789: The United States exists without a central executive under the [|Articles of Confederation]. (The presiding officer of the Congress was called the [|President of the Continental Congress]) 1786: [|The Annapolis Convention] meets to resolve commercial disputes between the states. 1787: George Washington appointed president of the [|Philadelphia Convention]. 1787: Leading Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry refuses to attend the Convention stating that he "smelt a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward the monarchy."


 * Goals:**
 * Understand the role that executive power played in early Britain in establishing administrative control, and consistency, over the country.
 * What were the relative impacts of Henry I, Henry II, and Edward I?
 * What was King John forced to concede in the Magna Carta?
 * What was the impact of the Acts of Supremacy?
 * What features of the Stuart Monarchs led to their removal from the crown by the end of the 17th Century?
 * How was the monarchy after the English Bill of Rights different than the monarchy before it?
 * What policies of King George led the colonies to declare independence?
 * Why was it significant that George Washington not only preside over the Philadelphia Convention, but was assumed by its participants to be the first president under the new Constitution?


 * The Executive**

I'll add background information about the executive branch here by the end of the day 10/5/10. Review the power points for basic information about the executive branch.

The executive branch executes, or implements, the laws. This includes prosecuting violations of the law before the judiciary. Doing so implies that the executive possesses "the sword" which allow the executive the authority to effectively implement laws. (Recall that the legislature possesses "the purse." It's strength comes from its ability to establish the rules concerning the collection of revenue and how it is redistribute it. We will puzzle over what the course of the judiciaries strength is soon enough). The two principles powers of the executive -- the one's that make it a potentially dangerous branch -- are the power to command the military and to collect taxes. While these powers are essential to governing, they lend themselves to abuse. This creates a dilemma that is addressed in the design of the executive.

As we will see, the United States Constitution opts for a strong executive with one individual in charge who can appoint subordinate executive officers. This is the President, officially, the person who "presides" over the executive branch. The power to appoint lower level officials gives the President tremendous power and influence over the rest of the executive branch. The singular form makes the office autocratic in nature. Recall that the merit of autocratic institutions is that they are efficient. That is the intent of the design. We will note that Hamilton wanted a singlular executive in order for their to be "energy" in the office. But the flip side of autocracy is arbitrary rule. Often when the judiciary rules against the use of executive power it will state that the power was used in an arbitrary -- capricious -- manner, and not according to the rule of law.

We will not that the state of Texas opted for a plural executive in order to reduce executive power. This follows a constant theme, where all government power is reduced in the state. Neither the legislative nor judicial powers are granted much power either. In Texas, a variety of executive officials are elected separately from the governor. This includes the Lieutenant Governor, the Attorney General, the Land Commissioner, and the Comptroller General among others. Their mutual autonomy is meant to restrict their ability to coordinate their actions. If a governor is a powerful leader within the political, then that influence can be used to recruit supporters and keep them in line. If not, executive action can be decentralized.

It is crucial to bear in mind that the executive branch is divided into political and a professional components. On the national level, this means that some people owe their positions to affiliations with the White House, and whoever won the past election. Others are members of the civil service.


 * Background: The British Monarchy**


 * Before we begin: Does absolute monarchic power corrupt? [|Absolutely!]

It may simplistic to state that monarchies were the first governments, the fact is that we do not know how governments began, we can only offer theories. But it is generally assumed that governments emerged due to the coercive power of a group that is able to conquer others and conscript them to work and fight to fuel further expansions of their power. These groups tend to be headed by a strong individual who gradually accumulates absolute power. Examples can be found throughout history. For our purposes, given our British roots, it is most useful to focus on the development and evolution of the British Monarch, so we understand what various monarchs accomplished throughout British history, how fears of concentrated monarchic authority led them to diminish, and how this history conditions the American system of government.

Here are a few sources with information about all of the British Monarchs.


 * [|The Official Site of the British Monarchy].
 * Britannia: [|List of British Monarchs].
 * Wikipedia: [|List of British Monarchs].

The ones that are most important for this section are the early monarchs that used their power to establish a bureaucratic and judicial infrastructure that allowed them to rule effectively. The establishment of these institutions effectively replaced the feudal system that had previously governed Britain. This allowed for greater efficiency and consistency in the implementation of law, but it strengthened the power of the king at the expense of the power of the nobility. So there are reasons why the barons would eventually revolt against King John. But prior to his rule, it would be worthwhile to note some of the achievements of his predecessors. These monarchs ruled following the [|Norman Conquest in 1066] when Anglo-Saxon kings were replaced with the Normans. They built upon the governing system which had already existed in the country.

Henry I ruled from 1100 to 1135. We discussed him briefly in the previous period because he was responsible for issuing the [|Charter of Liberties]. The charter was an attempt to reestablish the common law which had been created under the rule of Edward the Confessor. During the bulk of the Norman period, there was no legislation as we know it. Rule was based on custom and the arbitrary control, usually, of the nobility. By issuing the charter, the king was able to consolidate his authority, and did so by simultaneously clarifying the nature of his power. By establishing a charter which limited his power, he also expanded his power, because he claimed the right to right to issue it.

He also expanded his power by creating an administrative state subject to him. The custom had been for administrative duties to be carried out by the feudal barons, but that gave the barons discretion. The new bureaucratic system gave the king power over implementation. Since he was then in a position to intervene against the abusive use of power at the local level, he was able to gain the support of the people. He developed the Exchequer, which allowed for the efficient collection of taxes. Twice a year royal officials, sheriffs and others, would meet to sort out financing. Disputes would be settled by royal court officials sent to wherever the dispute occurred. This allowed for the king's court to reach out into the country and supplant local courts.

- Britannia: [|Henry I].

Henry II ruled from 1154 to 1189 and followed the rule of [|Stephen], an ineffective ruler whose reign was marked by lawlessness and [|anarchy]. Henry II's attempted to reinforce the creation of the institutions built by Henry I.

From Britannia.com: "//English and Norman barons in Stephen's reign manipulated feudal law to undermine royal authority; Henry instituted many reforms to weaken traditional feudal ties and strengthen his position. Unauthorized castles built during the previous reign were razed. Monetary payments replaced military service as the primary duty of vassals. The Exchequer was revitalized to enforce accurate record keeping and tax collection. Incompetent sheriffs were replaced and the authority of royal courts was expanded. Henry empowered a new social class of government clerks that stabilized procedure - the government could operate effectively in the king's absence and would subsequently prove sufficiently tenacious to survive the reign of incompetent kings. Henry's reforms allowed the emergence of a body of common law to replace the disparate customs of feudal and county courts. Jury trials were initiated to end the old Germanic trials by ordeal or battle. Henry's systematic approach to law provided a common basis for development of royal institutions throughout the entire realm//."

Across the board, the monarch is expanding his reach and authority and minimizing those of his principle rivals, the barons. Much of what he is accomplishing sounds like the modern executive we have today. Payment of taxes is the primary duty of citizenship, accurate records are kept (think of the census and tax assessors) the courts become professionalized, an autonomous bureaucracy is established that can work independent of the monarch, and due process is introduced. The principal points was his establishment of institutions that would carry out tasks in a systematic manner, that is the essence of bureaucracy.

His most important contribution was the establishment of a common law tradition that survives to this day. We will cover this aspect of his accomplishments when we discuss the judiciary, but common law decisions made during his reign are still valid today. It is not unusual for Supreme Court cases to use as precedence common law decisions that date back to this period.

- Britannia: [|Henry II]. - [|Henry II and Common Law].

John Lackland reigned from 1199 to 1216, and is the King John we discussed previously who was forced to sign the Magna Carta largely because he was ignoring the limits on monarchic power voluntarily established in the Charter of Liberties. He was an unpopular king and was stubborn in his dealings with other institutions, notably the barons and the church. That there was a revolt against him at all was testament to his incompetence. Other kings had been able to reconcile successfully with opponents. But the fact that other forces in society were able to compel him to sign the document and define his powers was a significant event itself.

From Britannia.com: "//The document, a declaration of feudal rights, stressed three points. First, the Church was free to make ecclesiastic appointments. Second, larger-than-normal amounts of money could only be collected with the consent of the king's feudal tenants. Third, no freeman was to be punished except within the context of common law. Magna Carta, although a testament to John's complete failure as monarch, was the forerunner of modern constitutions//."

- Britannia: [|John, Lackland].

Edward I ruled from 1272 - 1307. You might remember him if you saw the movie //Braveheart//. He was the guy after Mel Gibson. With Edward we see not only further development of the bureaucratic institutions that allowed the monarch to rule effectively, but an increased attitude on the part of the monarch that they have a special role to play.

From Britannia.com: "//Edward held to the concept of community, and although at times unscrupulously aggressive, ruled with the general welfare of his subjects in mind. He perceived the crown as judge of the proper course of action for the realm and its chief legislator; royal authority was granted by law and should be fully utilized for the public good, but that same law also granted protection to the king's subjects. A king should rule with the advice and consent of those whose rights were in question. The level of interaction between king and subject allowed Edward considerable leeway in achieving his goals//."

We see here precursors of the idea held later by Theodore Roosevelt, that the president is to be an active advocate for the people. As long as the executive has the advice and consent of the people, there are few practical limits on his power. His ability to act as he choose was also enhance by the following bureaucratic developments:

From Britannia.com: "//Edward I added to the bureaucracy initiated by Henry II to increase his effectiveness as sovereign. He expanded the administration into four principal parts: the Chancery, the Exchequer, the Household, and the Council. The Chancery researched and created legal documents while the Exchequer received and issued money, scrutinized the accounts of local officials, and kept financial records. These two departments operated within the king's authority but independently from his personal rule, prompting Edward to follow the practice of earlier kings in developing the Household, a mobile court of clerks and advisers that traveled with the king. The King's Council was the most vital segment of the four. It consisted of his principal ministers, trusted judges and clerks, a select group of magnates, and also followed the king. The Council dealt with matters of great importance to the realm and acted as a court for cases of national importance//."

The bureaucratic structure has four distinct parts - the Chancery - the Exchequer - the Household - the Council

- Britannia: [|Edward I].

Henry VIII ruled from 1509 to 1547. By the time he becomes king, the executive apparatus of the state had been well established. But he adds to the power of monarch: "//The king moved away from the medieval idea of ruler as chief lawmaker and overseer of civil behavior, to the modern idea of ruler as the ideological icon of the state//." This is a consequence of his conflict with the Catholic Church, which did not allow him to divorce repeatedly in order to get a male heir. He would eventually remove the kingdom from the authority of the church and replace it with the church of England, and established himself as the Supreme Head of the Church of England. He therefore became the spiritual head of the kingdom in addition to its monarch. What's more, as the Catholic Church began to oppose his rule, to be Catholic was to be opposed to the king.

This grew more heated when Elizabeth became queen and the pope effectively stated that any attempt on the queen's life would be taken as support for Catholicism. To not be a member of the Church of England was suddenly on par with treason, and many were executed as a consequence. The monarch has become not only the symbolic head of the kingdom, but also begins to demand more personal allegiance from other officials: "//England moved into an era of "conformity of mind" with the new royal supremacy (much akin to the absolutism of France's Louis XIV): by 1536, all ecclesiastical and government officials were required to publicly approve of the break with Rome and take an oath of loyalty//."

It is also worth pointing out the pocketbook benefits that the break with Catholicism had for both Britain and the monarchy. The church held a vast amount of land and other holdings which suddenly became the possession of the crown. Henry VIII became a wealthy man almost overnight, and with wealth comes power and influence.

- Britannia: [|Henry VIII]. - Wikipedia: [|Henry VIII].

The power of the monarchy was at its heighth during the reign of Elizabeth, but as she left no heir, her familial claim to the throne -- [|the Tudors] -- ended with her and was replaced with [|the Stuarts]. She was replaced on the throne with James I the first of the Stuart Monarchs, who ruled from 1605 to 1625. James was already King of Scotland, but -- according to Britannia.com: "//James' twenty-nine years of Scottish kingship did little to prepare him for the English monarchy: England and Scotland, rivals for superiority on the island since the first emigration of the Anglo-Saxon races, virtually hated each other. This inherent mistrust, combined with Catholic-Protestant and Episcopal-Puritan tensions, severely limited James' prospects of a truly successful reign. His personality also caused problems:// //he was witty and well-read, fiercely believed in the divine right of kingship and his own importance, but found great difficulty in gaining acceptance from an English society that found his rough-hewn manners and natural paranoia quite unbecoming. James saw little use for Parliament. His extravagant spending habits and nonchalant ignoring of the nobility's grievances kept king and Parliament constantly at odds. He came to the throne at the zenith of monarchical power, but never truly grasped the depth and scope of that power//."

Simply put, the efforts that had gone into creating a strong executive began the slow process of unraveling. As the quote above suggests, some of this was due to his being Scottish, but most was due to his belief in the divine nature of his appointment. One of the consequences of divine right was that the king became the embodiment of the law. Parliament had no role to play in the legislative process, which overturned several centuries of history which had buttressed legislative authority: "//The relationship between king and Parliament steadily eroded. Extravagant spending (particularly on James' favorites), inflation and bungled foreign policies discredited James in the eyes of Parliament. Parliament flatly refused to disburse funds to a king who ignored their concerns and were annoyed by rewards lavished on favorites and great amounts spent on decoration. James awarded over 200 peerages (landed titles) as, essentially, bribes designed to win loyalty//." He considered Parliament to be merely an advisory body and believe they should rarely meet and only when it was absolutely necessary. He also suspended the custom of hearing grievances from the nobility. In return the Parliament refused to levy the taxes he requested.

- Britannia: [|James I]. - Wikipedia: [|James I].

Charles I replaced James and ruled from 1625 until his execution in 1649. He also believed in the divine right of kings and was generally felt by others to be attempting to establish absolute rule over Britain. This belief was furthered by his increased use of Catholics as his advisers. Catholics were believed to be more supportive of absolute monarchy -- as they had established in France -- so the predominately Protestant Parliament held him in increased suspicion. As with James I, Charles had little interest in having Parliament meet, and called them sparingly, even preventing them from meeting altogether for an eleven year period of time in the 1630s. The need for funds forced Charles to call them back, but again, his overbearing approach led to further conflict:

"//A problem in Scotland brought an abrupt end to Charles' 11 years of personal rule and unleashed the forces of civil war upon England. Charles attempted to force a new prayer book on the Scots, which resulted in rebellion. Charles' forces were ill prepared due to lack of proper funds, causing the king to call, first, the Short Parliament, and finally the Long Parliament. King and Parliament again reached no agreement; Charles foolishly tried to arrest five members of Parliament on the advice of Henrietta Maria, which brought matters to a head. The struggle for supremacy led to civil war. Charles raised his standard against Parliamentary forces at Nottingham in 1642.//

//Religious and economic issues added to the differences between the supporters of the monarchy (Cavaliers) and the supporters of Parliament (Roundheads). The lines of division were roughly as follows: Cavalier backing came from peasants and nobility of Episcopalian roots while Roundhead backing came from the emerging middle class and tradesmen of the Puritanical movement. Geographically, the northern and western provinces aided the Cavaliers, with the more financially prosperous and populous southern and eastern counties lending aid to the Roundheads. The bottom line is that the Roundheads, with deeper pockets and more population from which to draw, were destined to win the battle. Oliver Cromwell and his New Model Army at Naseby soundly routed the Cavaliers in 1645. Scarcely a year later Charles surrendered to Scottish forces, which turned the king over to Parliament. In 1648, Charles was put on trial for treason; the tribunal, by a vote of 68 to 67, found the king guilty and ordered his execution in 1649//."

In short, Charles attempted to expand his authority over the Parliament, which led to Civil War and his execution for both governmental and practical reasons. The governmental reason is, as we have stated repeatedly, the King is beneath the law: //"...the fundamental proposition that the King of England was not a person, but an office whose every occupant was entrusted with a limited power to govern ‘by and according to the laws of the land and not otherwise’.// The practical reason was that as long as the king was alive, forces sympathetic to the monarchy could always rise up to replace him. Charles fell victim, most likely, to his insistence on his ability to impose his arbitrary will on Parliament and the country overall. It is worth noting that, aside from not allowing Parliament to convene for long periods of time and suspending Parliament as it suited him, the final straw appeared to be Charles sending troops to interfere with an impeachment proceeding in the House of Commons. This explains the provisions in our Constitution which prohibit the arresting of members on their way to or coming from Congress, as well as the clear statement that Congress has impeachment power.

- Britannia.com: [|Charles I]. - Wikipedia: [|Charles I]. - You Tube: [|The Trial of Charles the First]. - You Tube: [|A History of British Revolutions].

After the execution, Britain became a republican commonwealth, but eventually slipped into what some argue was a military dictatorship under Oliver Cromwell. Controversies still rage over how to describe this brief period between Charles' death and the re-establishment of the Stuart Monarchy (1649 - 1660). The execution of Charles was driven by the Puritans and their belief that the government and British society on general needed to be cleansed of any traces of Catholicism. By the time Charles was arrested in 1646, Parliament ruled exclusively, and as the factions within Parliament began to make governing difficult, the New Model Army, under the command of Oliver Cromwell, effectively took control and demolished the administrative apparatus that had been built up over the previous centuries:

"//English society splintered into many factions: Levellers (intent on eradicating economic castes), Puritans, Episcopalians, remnants of the Cavaliers and other religious and political radicals argued over the fate of the realm. The sole source of authority rest with the army, who moved quickly to end the debates. In November 1648, the Long Parliament was reduced to a "Rump" Parliament by the forced removal of 110 members of Parliament by Cromwell's army, with another 160 members refusing to take their seats in opposition to the action. The remainder, barely enough for a quorum, embarked on an expedition of constitutional change. The Rump dismantled the machinery of government, most of that, remained loyal to the king, abolishing not only the monarchy, but also the Privy Council, Courts of Exchequer and Admiralty and even the House of Lords. England was ruled by an executive Council of State and the Rump Parliament, with various subcommittees dealing with day-to-day affairs. Of great importance was the administration in the shires and parishes: the machinery administering such governments was left intact; ingrained habits of ruling and obeying hearkened back to monarchy//."

Following the use of his army to eradicate opposition, Cromwell used it to eliminate the House of Commons at the point of a sword. After attempting to establish a religiously based legislature, Cromwell decided to rule on his own, but he soon died and the Commonwealth feel apart soon afterwards to be replaced with a restored Stuart Monarchy. Several lessons were learned from this brief experiment, many learned by the authors of the U.S. Constitution. First, republics can be unstable, violent and short lived if not designed properly. Second, there is value in the preservation of existing institutions. And third, A strong executive is as necessary as a strong legislature in ensuring that governmental power will be balanced and checked.

- Britannia.com: [|Oliver Cromwell]. - Wikipedia: [|Oliver Cromwell]. - Wikipedia: [|The Commonwealth of England]. - You Tube: [|Oliver Cromwell and the English Civil War 1/4]. - You Tube: [|Oliver Cromwell and the English Civil War 2/4]. - You Tube: [|Oliver Cromwell and the English Civil War 3/4]. - You Tube: [|Oliver Cromwell and the English Civil War 4/4].

The turmoil towards the end of the commonwealth led to the decision to reinstate the Stuart monarchy and Charles II was invited to assume the throne, but soon the same conflicts emerged. Charles II suspended laws arbitrarily and religious antagonisms grew between the crown and Parliament. Parliamentary attempts to impeach royal advisers led to Charles dissolving Parliament and to the elections of an increasingly hostile legislature whenever they were called back into session due to the King's need for funds. This hostility came to a head over the question of whether James II would be able to become king following the death of Charles. The Exclusion Act was introduced into Parliament to prevent this. Members split in two over the controversy with supporters becoming the Whigs and opponents becoming the Tories. These were the first political parties in Britain and they would influence the development of a party system in the U.S. years later.

Charles was eventually replaced with his brother James II who would further alienate the monarchy from Parliament, in ways similar to Charles I. His reign was met with several rebellions that were quickly and violently suppressed. Afterwords he began using a standing army for protection, which violated centuries of precedence. He also attempted to re institute the use of royal prerogative, which allowed him to override the decisions of Parliament. As with the rest of the Stuarts however, the overriding issue was religion, and James' increased appointments of Catholics to positions of power alienated Parliament.

- Wikipedia: [|The Restoration]. - Britannia.com: [|Charles II]. - Wikipedia: [|Charles II]. - Britannia.com: [|James II]. - Wikipedia: [|James II].

When his Catholic wife gave birth to a son, Protestant opposition peaked and they would eventually invite William of Orange and Mary (one of James II's daughters) to jointly rule. But their rule was made conditional, as we have discussed before on their signing the Declaration of Rights (and later the Settlement Act) where they would swear to accept limitations on their power that the previous kings had refused to accept. This was the Glorious Revolution which would lead to the end of government based on royal prerogative and established Britain as a constitutional monarchy.

"//Whigs and Tories in Parliament, divided over the course of English commerce and Puritan-Anglican tensions, united in two goals: to maintain supremacy over the monarchy, and to forever eliminate Catholic influence in government. The character of the monarchy was altered evermore as oligarchic rule fueled parliamentary reform of government. The Bill of Rights, enacted in 1689, was more a bill of limitations: the use of royal and prerogative rights (the foundation of Tudor-Stuart authority) was forbidden, the king could only maintain a standing army with parliamentary consent, and an annual income of £600,000 was disbursed to the monarchs, with grants for specific purposes also appropriated by Parliament. The Mutiny Act ensured that Parliament would be prorogued every year by requiring parliamentary approval of the armed forces on a yearly basis. The Bank of England was established to deal with financing government. The Settlement Act of 1701 was the final act to fully establish the supremacy of Parliament. King William's War, a series of continental battles fought primarily to push Protestantism, had heavily taxed English economic resources; to retaliate, The Settlement Act forbid wars without Parliament's consent//."

- Britannia.com: [|William and Mary]. - Wikipedia: [|William and Mary]. - Avalon Project: [|Text of the British Declaration of Rights]. - You Tube: [|Glorious Revolution Documentary].
 * Colonial Governors**

The Stuarts were largely responsible for chartering the original colonies and appointing the executive officers, the governors, who oversaw them.

- Wikipedia: [|List of Colonial Governors].


 * King George III**

As we know from basic American history, King George III was the British monarch whose actions led to the Revolutionary War and American Independence. The grievances of the colonists were not fundamentally different than the grievances that the British themselves had against their monarchs. Unpopular taxes were imposed and troops were sent over to keep the peace. As with the Stuarts, George's arrogant refusal to deal with the complaints of the colonists, against the advice of his own councilors, made war inevitable. In order to justify revolution, colonial leaders listed their complaints, and addressed them to a candid world. Several of these were meant to argue that the king was attempting to usurp the executive power enjoyed in the colonies. They help us understand what the colonists actually feared about the executive, and many soudn similar to the complaints made against previous executives throughout British history. The "he" of course refers to [|King George III].


 * he has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
 * he has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.
 * he has effected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.
 * for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.
 * for protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states
 * he is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

Notice that all pertain to the military. Many are also essentially the same as the restrictions on executive power listed in the [|Declaration of Rights]. The second and third may be the most important because they touch on the structure of government. The problem with the standing armies in peace time is that they were not kept with the consent of colonial legislatures, and the civil power was being rendered inferior to military power.

- Avalon Project: [|Declaration of Independence]. - Wikipedia: [|Declaration of Independence].


 * The Executive Branch under the Articles of Confederation**.

As we already know, the Articles of Confederation were the first attempt to establish a constitution for the new country. Given fears of executive power, and the relatively important status of their legislature, it is not surprising that there was no executive branch under the Articles of Confederation, only a unicameral legislature. All executive functions were held by the states. But just as the lack of an executive under the British Commonwealth weakened Britain, the lack of a national executive branch was seen by the Federalists to ensure the the U.S. would remain weak itself.

- U.S. Constitution Online: [|Articles of Confederation]. - Wikipedia: [|Articles of Confederation].

The Constitutional Convention was called to address this deficiency and most participants argued that a national executive was necessary to strengthen the country. As we will cover in the next section, the principal dispute had to do with whether the office would be singular or plural. A singular executive would be effective, but could facilitate the development of a homegrown monarchy. The latter was to be avoided at all costs. The inclusion of George Washington as president of the convention, with the expectation that he would serve as presidents was a solution to this dilemma. Washington had already demonstrated self control. He had the opportunity to claim for himself monarchic power after the war, but refused to do so. Instead he resigned his position and went back to his farm.

We will build on this story in the next section.

- Wikipedia: [|George Washington].


 * Past Written Questions:**

1 - Read the information about the Stuart kings and detail how they might have led people to seek to limit the influence of the monarchy. Pay special attention to Charles the 1st and his conflict with parliament. Read the Declaration of Rights and specify how in fact the power of the monarchy was limited in that document. 2 - Which grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence focused on efforts of the king to minimize colonial executive power? What does this tell us about the problems posed by monarchic power? 3. Analyze how early British kings used an administrative apparatus to assist in governing England. Select an organization, like the exchequer for instance, and detail what it did and how. Do we have similar institutions today? 4. Charles I and Parliament did not get along. This is of course an understatement. Detail the conflicts between the two, to the best of your ability. What arguments did each make justifying their authority? Did this conflict play any role in establishing our current understanding of the relationship between the executive and legislative branches. 5. Review and critically comment on the specific grievances made against the actions of King George regarding his usurpation of executive power in the colonies (see the list below). How might these grievances help us understand the nature of executive authority in the United States and ongoing conflict concerning the role of the executive in government. 6. One of the criticisms made against the government established by the Articles of Confederation was that it lacked a national executive branch. Why was this considered to be a problem by some, but not others?