The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson was Strong despite Formal Weaknesses in Constitution

The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson was Strong despite Formal Weaknesses in Constitution

I understand the rules governing plagiarism, and I certify that the work contained in this paper is my work I have given appropriate citations for quotations and ideas I have taken from other authors.

Signed

Since time immemorial, there have been the raging debates over the supremacy of the office of president of the United States of America, vis a vis, that of the US Congress and Judiciary. It is indisputable that the Founding Fathers of the American nation, determined not to replicate the British Monarch system, intended to create a ceremonial president as per Article I and II of the Constitution. The drafters of the Constitution of the United States never envisioned the ceremonial post they created then would achieve the stature of the American presidency today[1]. However, it is admissible that even in the formative stages of the nation, the presidency was powerful due to the informal powers. During the tenure of President Thomas Jefferson, the presidency was strong despite its constitutional limitations as illustrated by the events that can be construed as Congress being a mere rubber stamp of the presidency. Such events include the First Barbary War, Louisiana Purchase, the abolition of the international slave trade and the application of states secret privilege.

Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers, was the third president of the United States of America. He served two terms, from 1801 to 1809. Thomas Jefferson is widely acknowledged as one of the best presidents the USA ever had.  Both the Sienna Research Institute poll of presidential scholars and Brooking Institution poll ranked him as the five best U.S presidents^[2]. The former president is regarded as an icon of individual liberty, democracy, and founder of republicanism and the architect of the American Revolution[3]. The first notable instance of the might of the presidency despite the constitutional weakness during his tenure is the First Barbary War.

The First Barbary War of 1801 enhances the power of the presidency as it undermines the Congress, positing it as a mere rubber stamp of the presidency. After ascending to the presidency, Thomas Jefferson instructed and authorized the U. S navy under Richard Dale to make a show of force in the Mediterranean against the Barbary States. The success prompted him to influence Congress in declaring war against the states, leading to the first Barbary war[4]. In this case, the power of the presidency is illustrated through the issuing of instructions to the military, on the prerogative of the president, to make an act of show of force against perceived enemies. The subsequent declaration of war further illustrates the influence of the persuasion and charisma of the post on Congress. As such, the provisions on the declaration of war by Congress as per Section 8 of Article II of the US constitution are mostly pretentious, as the president is the real playmaker and influencer of the decisions..

Notably, even in subsequent presidencies such as Theodore Roosevelt’s military attack on Panama in 1903, the Vietnam and Korea wars, the presidents went into war without consulting and obtaining formal declarations from Congress[5]. The first Barbary war and the lack of formal declarations, coupled with the Louisiana Purchase, constitute overt acts that solidify the power of the presidency.

The Louisiana Purchase portrayed the power of the presidency regardless of its constitutional limitations. The purchase nearly doubled the size of the USA by 827,987 square miles and is regarded as one of the most formative events in history. Notably, the constitution was mostly silent on the power of the federal government to purchase land, and President Jefferson thought that a constitutional amendment was vital to acquire and govern the new land[6]. To avert such a crisis and in the interests of preserving diplomatic relations of the U.S, the president opted to not call for an amendment. Instead, he used Congress as his rubber stamp by persuading and influencing its decision to ratify the purchase treaty. The Senate ratified it in 1803 by an overwhelming 80 % vote in favour. The use of the informal powers of persuasion and charisma are further illustrated in the Lewi and Clark expeditions.

President Jefferson, a renowned scholar, initiated the Lewis and Clark expeditions of 1806, desiring to explore and expand the territories of the USA. They were to explore the frontiers of the American territory, and further study the Indian tribes residing in the area. The funding of the expeditions by Congress, and even further subsequent expeditions, on persuasion by the Jefferson further showcases the influence of the presidency post on Congress. Notably, despite the constitutionally vested executive powers, Congress always seemed to act in the interests and prerogative of the president, for instance, in the issue of slavery.

Despite numerous perceived historical contradictions, it is irrefutable that Thomas Jefferson was a proponent of the abolition of slavery. His controversial passage in the Declaration of Independence critical of the King role in promoting slavery was struck out by the committee[7]. It is arguable that even though Jefferson was a slave owner, he believed in the universal suffrage. To him, all men were created equal by God and should lead their lives as so. He further considered that the indigenous Indians were intellectually and physically equal to the Europeans. In fact, after the aforementioned expeditions, he advocated for their assimilation into the European way of life instead of use of aggression. He stated that an act of war would have ensured the total extermination of the said peoples. The president’s personal views of personal liberty and extended suffrage in his annual message of 1804, though controversial at that time, influenced Congress to criminalize the international slave trade vide the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves 1807.

The coining and application of the doctrine of states secret privilege is perhaps the most notable act of defiance by the presidency against the legislature and judiciary. During Aaron Burr’s treason trial, President Thomas Jefferson got subpoenaed to testify by the accused’s legal team and provide certain evidence that was necessary for the trial. The president declined by raising the defence of states secret privilege, citing that such would be disadvantageous to the preservation of the state. He further raised the argument in Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105 (1876)[8]. Jefferson’s act set arguments precedent to the application of executive privilege and states secrets by presidents to constitutionally defy the orders by the legislature and judiciary. Notably, subsequent presidents such as Bill Clinton tried to take advantage of the silence of the constitution on the matter. As such, the potency of the executive privilege, coupled with the silence and ambiguity of the extent of the doctrine, highlights the power of the presidency despite its constitutional weakness.

The preceding denote the power of the presidency, despite its formal weakness in the constitution. The informal powers of persuasion and charisma are primarily the culprit attributed in the gross usurpation of the functions of the Congress by the president, even including legislative making. From the influence on Congress, it can be deciphered and subsequently concluded that the presidency is involved in the legislative work of Congress, as a substantial number of the bills legislated and passed into law concur with the Presidents interests. Such notable acts include the Military Peace Establishment Act of 1802 and the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807[9].

To ascertain that the presidency has unlimited powers, despite the constitutional provisions, would be a fallacy. The doctrine of separation of powers by Baron de Montesquieu in his book, The Spirit of the Laws, severely curtails the powers of the presidency[10]. In some instances, Congress refuted the notion of it being the rubber stamps of the presidency by highly criticizing the presidency and refusing to pass some of his proposed bills. In such stances, the presidency appeared inferior to both the legislature and the courts. The events include split of the Republican Party in 1806, the critic on the failed purchase of Florida, and the acquittal in the Burr trial.

Aaron Burr, Jefferson’s former vice president, was facing charges of treason and conspiracy against the Union. He got accused of taking an expedition of 60 men down to the Ohio River, to either seize control of Florida or form a secessionist state to the west [11].Burr got betrayed by James Wilkinson, who reported him to Thomas Jefferson. The president accused him in Congress for treason. Thomas Jefferson tried to influence the decision of the Congress to convict Burr, stating that Burr’s guilt was beyond reasonable doubt. However, Congress dismissed the charges. The dismissal is partly attributed to the declining popularity of Thomas Jefferson and the political animosity between the president and Joe Marshall. A jury further acquitted Burr during the trial, and Jefferson vehemently condemned his acquittal[12]. In light of the preceding, the failure of the informal powers on Congress and the courts waters down the notion of the supremacy of the power of the presidency. It is rendered weak in the presence of formal laws and institutions. Notably, his persuasion and charisma did not work, especially after the Republican Party split.

In 1806, Congress got to check and limit the powers of the presidency. John Randolph vehemently critiqued Jefferson when he tabled a bill requesting for funds amounting to 20 million dollars to assist in the building of roads and canals across several states. The republicans, particularly John Randolph, were alarmed that such a move would destroy the inferences of a limited government, and further interfere with the individual state’s rights and independence[13]. As such, the objections to Jefferson’s plans highlighted the limitations of the presidency, in that mainly it had to operate with the approval of the Congress, the absence of which it was a lame duck.

Notably, the dependence on Congress for funds highly curtails the power of the presidency. Without the approval of Congress and its funding for various projects, the presidency of Thomas Jefferson would have been a toothless bulldog. For instance, President Jefferson had to humbly seek the approval and funding from Congress in the First Barbary War, the Lewis and Clark expeditions, and the Louisiana Purchase[14]. For approval, this mandated the presidency being in popular terms with the members of the republic and Congress, contrary to which his interests would got dismissed. Such denials would have greatly eroded and exposed the notion of the supremacy of the presidency and executive over the legislature and executive.

As per the preceding, it is irrefutable that in the contemporary are, the presidency is way too powerful, despite its inscribed intended constitutional weaknesses and limitations. The First Barbary War, the purchase of Louisiana from Napoleon, the Lewis Clark expeditions, and criminalization of the international slave trade, all highlight the might of the presidency through the exploitation of informal powers during Thomas Jefferson tenure. Such powers render the presidency a powerful office, recognized across the world as the highest and most powerful office. However, it is irrefutable that without the support of Congress especially in fiscal matters, the presidency and the executive not function. As such, to enhance the strength of the powers of the presidency, the incumbent president must learn from the highlights of Thomas Jefferson’s tenure to be in great terms with Congress.

Bibliography

Bow, C. B. 2016. “Waging War For The Righteous: William Eaton on Enlightenment, Empire, And Coup D’état In The First Barbary War, 1801-1805”. History 101 (348): 692-709. doi:10.1111/1468-229x.12324.

Calabresi, Steven G., Mark E. Berghausen, and Skylar Albertson Albertson. 2012. “The Rise and Fall of The Separation Of Powers”. Northwestern University Law Review 106.https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1115&context=nulr.

Cox, Archibald. 1974. “Executive Privilege”. University Of Pennsylvania Law Review 122 (6): 1383.https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5725&context=penn_law_review.

Finkelman, Paul. 1994. “Thomas Jefferson and Antislavery: The Myth Goes On Author(S)”. The Journal of Southern History 63 (1): 157. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4249430.

Fisher, Louis. 2015. “The Law: Jefferson and The Burr Conspiracy: Executive Power Against The Law”. Presidential Studies Quarterly 45 (1): 157-174. doi:10.1111/psq.12175.

Freidel, Frank, and Hugh Sidey. n.d. The Presidents of The United States Of America. Washington, D.C.: White House Historical Association.

Harvard Law. 2015. “Presidential Power Surges – Harvard Law Today”. Harvard Law Today. https://today.law.harvard.edu/feature/presidential-power-surges/.

Meacham, Jon. 2013. Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power. 1st ed. Random House Publishing Group.

Rogers, William P. 1971. “Congress, The President, And The War Powers”. California Law Review 59 (5): 1194. doi:10.2307/3479587.

United States v. Burr, 1807, 25 Fed.Cas. page 55, No. 14,693

Ushistory.org. 2020. “Westward Expansion: The Louisiana Purchase [Ushistory.Org]”. Ushistory.Org. https://www.ushistory.org/us/20c.asp.

Vaughn, Brandon. 2015. “Measuring Obama against The Great Presidents”. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2015/02/13/measuring-obama-against-the-great-presidents/.

[1] Harvard Law. 2015. “Presidential Power Surges – Harvard Law Today”. Harvard Law Today. https://today.law.harvard.edu/feature/presidential-power-surges/.

[2] Freidel, Frank, and Hugh Sidney. n.d. The Presidents of the United States of America. Washington, D.C.: White House Historical Association.

[3] Vaughn, Brandon. 2015. “Measuring Obama against the Great Presidents”. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2015/02/13/measuring-obama-against-the-great-presidents

[4] Bow, C. B. 2016. “Waging War For The Righteous: William Eaton on Enlightenment, Empire, And Coup D’état In the First Barbary War, 1801-1805”. History 101 (348): 692-709. doi:10.1111/1468-229x.12324.

[5] Rogers, William P. 1971. “Congress, The President, And The War Powers”. California Law Review 59 (5): 1194. doi:10.2307/3479587.

[6] ushistory.org. 2020. “Westward Expansion: The Louisiana Purchase [Ushistory.Org]”. Ushistory.Org. https://www.ushistory.org/us/20c.asp.

[7] Finkelman, Paul. 1994. “Thomas Jefferson and Antislavery: The Myth Goes On Author(S)”. The Journal of Southern History 63 (1): 157http://www.jstor.org/stable/4249430.

[8] Cox, Archibald. 1974. “Executive Privilege”. University Of Pennsylvania Law Review 122 (6): 1383.https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5725&context=penn_law_review.

[9] The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 proscribed harsh punishment for the offenders. However, it did not deal with the issue of the domestic slave trade

[10] Calabresi, Steven G., Mark E. Berghausen, and Skylar Albertson Albertson. 2012. “The Rise and Fall of The Separation Of Powers”. Northwestern University Law Review 106.https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1115&context=nulr.

[11] United States v. Burr, 1807, 25 Fed.Cas. page 55, No. 14,693

[12] Fisher, Louis. 2015. “The Law: Jefferson and The Burr Conspiracy: Executive Power Against The Law”. Presidential Studies Quarterly 45 (1): 157-174. doi:10.1111/psq.12175.

[13] Meacham, Jon. 2013. Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power. 1st ed. Random House Publishing Group.

[14] Meacham